Talk:Rosa Luxemburg

A friend of mine proposed changes to the former Luxemburgism article earlier this year with the idea in mind that no one practices the tendency. While this is acknowledged to be partially correct, further scholarly review has produced copious evidence for its historical existence in German monographs, articles, etc. (One is directly related to the notion of Luxemburgism in the context of the DDR, where it was used to smear political opponents (much like Trotskyism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism): "Rosa Luxemburgs Kritik an Lenin blieb zu ihren Lebzeiten unbekannt. Sie wurde erst 1922 von Paul Levi unter dem Titel Zur russischen Revolution veröffentlicht. Anlass dazu war für ihn zum einen der Beschluss der KPD zur „Offensivstrategie“ 1920, den die von Sinowjew geführte Kommunistische Internationale (Komintern) unterstützte, zum anderen der Versuch, die KPD im Kontext des Märzaufstands 1921 zur Abkehr von ihrer Orientierung, durch einen Putsch zur Macht gelangen zu können, zu bewegen und ihre Positionierung gegen die SPD-Linke in Frage zu stellen. Daraufhin schloss die KPD Levi aus. Seine Veröffentlichung trug dazu bei, dass Josef Stalin, die KPdSU, die Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands (KPD)[10] und später die Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands (SED) [11] Rosa Luxemburgs Positionen später insgesamt als Luxemburgismus abwehrten und verfemten. Von Gegnern des Stalinismus wurden ihre kritischen Passagen dagegen später oft als Inbegriff des Demokratischen Sozialismus zitiert."

The current merged section is called "Thought" on the page for Rosa Luxemburg. The original "Luxemburgism" page that existed needs some key edits, which I am prepared to engage in/with. See also: Von Stefan Steinberg, "Vorgeführt und lächerlich gemacht" Wie die PDS auf die Errichtung einer Statue von Rosa Luxemburg reagiert, [www.wsws.org, 26. Januar 1999, (Online, pdf http://www.wsws.org/de/1999/jan1999/rosa-j26.shtml)

Hoarmurath (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why is the article in this category? Luxemburg herself was not a communist book (though I notice that she wrote several), and this is not a topic category. Geolodus (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

She despised Prussian men and resented what she saw as the grip of urban capitalism on social democracy.

Needs clarity. Red Society 01 (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

A number of sources (The Local [1], Deutsche Welle [2] The New European [3] and the Gietinger book) refer to it as a murder. I have replaced execution with murder unless it refers to Pabst's orders. Best, Caius G. (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

More sources: Encyclopedia Britannica [4] The Times of Israel [5] and The Conversation (website) [6]. The demonstration has also been described as honouring the "murdered" Luxemburg and Liebknecht [7] (in German). Best, Caius G. (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Execution ? ? - Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is the state-sanctioned killing of a person as punishment for a crime. The sentence ordering that someone is punished with the death penalty is called a death sentence, and the act of carrying out such a sentence is known as an execution. - Rosa Luxemburg was murdered, not executed. --213.172.123.242 (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Do it's an assassination then Mhatopzz (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

There's usually a section detailing how a historical figure died, particularly in cases like Rosa where they were assasinated, executed or otherwise killed. BetweenCupsOfTea (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I came here specifically to mention that the circumstances surrounding her death are of historical importance and the details are scattered throughout the article but with no clear description of what is known by history. She was murdered, excecuted, by whom, for what specifically, etc. This is a glaring omission.Calydon (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

the gymnasium story is absolutely incorrect. She attended a Polish school, founded by patriotic Polish countess Zyberk-Plater. It was a very prestigious establishment. One of the most expensive schools in the area of Poland occupied by Russian Empire. So it means that her family had means to pay for a very exclusive education. Therefore it signifies her very privileged social position. So there is nothing exceptional in her being Jewish and accepted to the said school, apart from the fact that her father was very wealthy. But this would not sit very well with mythos of Jewish discrimination,. But still I insist that someone would edit the entry accordingly shemyaza

It currently solely lists her nationality as "Polish" in the lede; I propose we change to "Polish-German" or similar, as she had German citizenship and lived much of her life in Germany. I also think we should merge nationality and citizenship in the info box, as the two concepts are usually the same, and list both "Polish" and "German".

I think the current version is appropriate and highly explanatory, especially by the first sentence in the lead section. Oliszydlowski (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I disagree; I feel that, as she was primarily known for her actions in Germany, she should be listed as German-Polish; furthermore, nationality and citizenship should be combined, as they synonymous in this case. I did, however, add a note to the lead explaining that she was born in poland and later became a German citizen. --LordNimon (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well Rosa wasnt polish by citizenship or ethnicity, nor was polish her first language. It could be argued that she should rather be described as Russian-German. Gawelsky (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Polish was her first language... --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I doubt you could find a source stating that. Her actual native language was yiddish. Gawelsky (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

"In 1908 and 1909, Luxemburg published a series of articles titled Kwestia narodowościowa i autonomia (The National Question and Autonomy) in the journal of SDKPiL, Przegląd Socjaldemokratyczny—her most important work on nations and nationalism. She analyzed the consequences of capitalism, especially among nations that lacked independence and had to defend their rights to cultural autonomy in the context of multiethnic states. As far as the Jewish question was concerned, she argued that there was only one way leading to emancipation: political integration of Jews with societies among whom they lived and their participation in the general struggle for equal rights. Luxemburg considered Yiddish to be merely a jargon, distorted German, not capable of becoming the basis for a separate Jewish culture. She did, however, fight against antisemitism in her political writing, particularly when it intensified in Congress Poland following the 1905 Revolution." - quoted from: [8].

"So far, no Luxemburg researcher has discovered a manuscript in Yiddish by Rosa Luxemburg. Rosa Luxemburg understood Yiddish (she was brought up in the Jewish faith), but regarded it as a form of slang and used it rather seldom, and then mostly as an insult or in self-irony." - quoted from: [9].

All it took was one quick Google search. As much as I personally find Yiddish fascinating and disagree with what Luksemburg had to say about it, I do not try to fabricate her views to suit my own agenda. You have yet to provide a single source for your controversial opinions. Your baseless assumptions and attempts to troll other users are pathetic and offensive. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Wasn't murder, you are twisting words, pathetic. 220.76.183.4 (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sources say that it was murder. 15 (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

If she was killed without trial, in a country that had functioning law courts and even proper military courts, then it was murder (assassination or unlawful execution are just varieties of murder.) Pascalulu88 (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The section on the attempted German Revolution has a quote of a speech Luxemburg gave:

Today we can seriously set about destroying capitalism once and for all. Nay, more; not merely are we today in a position to perform this task, nor merely is its performance a duty toward the proletariat, but our solution offers the only means of saving human society from destruction.

This quote has a reference before it attributed to "Nettl, J. P. Rosa Luxemburg. Vol. 1. p. 131. Waters, Mary-Alice Waters (ed.). Rosa Luxemburg Speaks. p. 7.", but I can't find the text in either book. --Ashawley (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I was able to trace it to Our Program and the Political Situation (December 1918) as posted at https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/12/31.htm. However, I cited the more recent translation in The Rosa Luxemburg Reader (2004) from Monthly Review Press and edited by Hudis and Anderson. -- Ashawley (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The fact that this does not follow how reliable sources describe her is that Google Scholar search results in the majority of results using "Polish Marxist" to describe something other than Luxemburg herself. Wikipedia follows WP:RS and therefore this is not a suitable description. The areas she is active in is already described in the next sentence by the political parties she belonged to, so I see this as both redundant and oversimplifying the issue of her nationality. (t · c) buidhe 18:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Buidhe: - Perhaps let's avoid the question of nationality and set focus on citizenship or her contributions to socialist movements in Germany (primarily) and Poland (also very significant). I believe it is fair. I have also changed the order in the first sentence description to suit this. Does it sound appropriate? Merangs (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Plenty of research has been done about this already - Luksemburg retained her Polish identity and Polish remained her first language, as evidenced by her numerous private letters written in Polish (particularly those to her longtime partner) and her texts on the matters of Germanisation and Russification of Poles under colonial rule. There are many sources that provide proof of this, including plenty of those that are used throughout the article (particularly in the Poland section). Just because someone is forced to flee their country of origin due to political persecution does not mean they cease being part of that culture, in the same way that receiving citizenship in a foreign country through marriage does not mean that one ceases to be a person from their original place of birth and where they spent their formative years. The lead should say that she is a "Polish Marxist", because that is exactly who she was; even during her time in Germany, despite her excellent knowledge of the German language and commitment to internationalism, various people within the SPD continued to see her as an outsider as tends to be the case for migrants. The later sentence, still in the first paragraph, that she was "Born and raised in an assimilated Jewish family in Poland, she became a German citizen in 1897" should be enough for everyone. I understand why Polish nationalists are trying to bury Luksemburg's Polish origin and identity, as to them she is a "traitor" and all that, but I really do not understand what others have to gain from trying to erase her cultural background. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

She was Askhenazi Jewish by ethnicity and culture, Russian and German by nationality and she was a strong opponent of polish statehood. I don't understand i what way it is accurate to describe her as polish.

PS Poland has never been under colonial rule.

PPS i doubt many polish nationalists even heard of her considering her obscurity in Poland Gawelsky (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

She was Ashkenazi Jewish by ethnicity and origin, but that's about it. Have you even read her comments about the Yiddish language? She considered it nothing less than some primitive dialect and a mixture of already existing languages (although I respect her greatly, I very much disagree with her on that). Luksemburg was Polish by nationality, later German by citizenship. She was an opponent of Polish bourgeois statehood in the same way that Ludwik Waryński and Władysław Kowalski were against it and in the same sense that I am. None of that stops us from being Polish. Just because you do not support a government or nation-state doesn't mean you cannot identify with the culture of the people ruled by said state - especially if it is the language you were raised to speak and the culture with which you feel closest to. I'm not even gonna bother answering your ridiculous claim that "Poland has never been under colonial rule". It helps to pick up a history book every once in a while. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

well borders in Europe changed many times in history but as far as i know they werent colonial in their character. Would you say that Poland is currently colonizing Silesia and Pomerania (areas historically German) or that France is colonizing Alsace–Lorraine? PetPrm (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm gonna assume this comment was made in good faith, so I'll respond in the same way: although indeed not all border changes and conquests in Eastern Europe were of a colonial nature, many actually were. If we study the German and Russian policies of cultural imperialism over Poles (primarily through restrictions on the use of Polish and limits on Polish education as well as oppression of the religious life of Poles), then we can come to that conclusion quite easily. And the later Nazi German racial policies against most Slavs, particularly Poles and Russians, leave no doubt.

Also, Silesia and Pomerania are historically German just as much as they are Slavic. In fact, long before German settlement in areas of present-day Poland, much of eastern Germany used to be the territory of Slavonic tribes. These lands were home to many peoples over centuries, including Celtic tribes even before the Slavs and Germanic peoples were there. However, that's no longer relevant to this topic. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's also worth pointing out that Luksemburg was 26 years old when she gained German citizenship. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

^^"PS Poland has never been under colonial rule." - Gawelsky that is categorically untrue and you know it. Stop stirring the pot and making incredibly inflammatory statements.--2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:402F:47C2:49F:3D03 (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

as far as i know no article on colonization on Wikipedia mentioned Poland as an area of colonial conquest. Quite the contrary, there are plenty of articles describing Polish colonial projects in South America and Africa. PetPrm (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but there are also articles like Polish Haitians about how Poles joined the Haitians in the fight against French colonialism when they realised the situation of Haiti was so similar to that of Poland back home (and again, though in a slightly different context, with the American war of independence). Various countries throughout history have been both the perpetrators and subjects of colonialism, e.g. Poland colonised Ukraine, yet it has also been colonised by Germany and Russia. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

This has literally nothing to do with what we talk about. Poland did engage and collaborate with colonialist power and itself was not a target of colonialism like the rest of europe. PetPrm (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Also worth pointing out that she never had a polish citizenship. By citizenship she was Russian and later Russian-German. Gawelsky (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

In that sense no Poles at the time had Polish citizenship - does that mean they were not Polish, regardless of their language and cultural identity, and we should think of them all as Russians? You have no argument. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

It appears @Gawelsky: has not read Luxemburg's works and memoirs, and disregarded the sourced content in the biography section. User's action seems POV and politically motivated. Please do not impose edits without an RfC vote. Also, I kindly remind the user that "Polish" it capitalised. Looks [somewhat] like a vandalism-only account. Merangs (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Agreed completely, this person seems to have a complete disregard for historical sources and lack of understanding regarding the topics that are being discussed by this article. We can be guided by our POV and interests in the choice of pages that we edit, in fact it's best if we are because then we are committed to better quality contributions, but we must NEVER allow our personal views to affect the content of our editing. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I removed the part about citizenship and nationality from the infobox per WP:Neutral point of view. It can be interpreted in many different conflicting ways which may not be to the benefit of the article or the reader. The article itself explains it all if reference is needed. Merangs (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

That's absolutely fair, thank you for explaining it here too. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

From section, October Revolution Criticism:

The abolition of the rule of capital, the realization of a socialist social order – this, and nothing less, is the historical theme of the present revolution. It is a formidable undertaking, and one that will not be accomplished in the blink of an eye just by the issuing of a few decrees from above. Only through the conscious action of the working masses in city and country can it be brought to life, only through the people's highest intellectual maturity and inexhaustible idealism can it be brought safely through all storms and find its way to port.

In her later work The Russian Tragedy, Luxemburg blamed many of the perceived failures of the Bolsheviks on the lack of a socialist uprising in Germany:

The Bolsheviks have certainly made a number of mistakes in their policies and are perhaps still making them – but where is the revolution in which no mistakes have been made! The notion of a revolutionary policy without mistakes, and moreover, in a totally unprecedented situation, is so absurd that it is worthy only of a German schoolmaster. If the so-called leaders of German socialism lose their so-called heads in such an unusual situation as a vote in the Reichstag, and if their hearts sink into their boots and they forget all the socialism they ever learned in situation in which the simple abc of socialism clearly pointed the way – could one expect a party caught up in a truly thorny situation, in which it would show the world new wonders, not to make mistakes?

From section, Quotations:

• Luxemburg's perhaps best-known quotation "Freiheit ist immer nur Freiheit des anders Denkenden" (sometimes translated as "Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters") is an excerpt from the following passage:^[1]

Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of a party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always the freedom of the one who thinks differently. Not because of the fanaticism of "justice", but rather because all that is instructive, wholesome, and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effects cease to work when "freedom" becomes a privilege.

• "The capitalist state of society is doubtless a historic necessity, but so also is the revolt of the working class against it – the revolt of its gravediggers." (April 1915)
• "Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element."^[2]
• "For us there is no minimal and no maximal program; socialism is one and the same thing: this is the minimum we have to realize today."^[3]
• "Today, we face the choice exactly as Friedrich Engels foresaw it a generation ago: either the triumph of imperialism and the collapse of all civilization as in ancient Rome, depopulation, desolation, degeneration – a great cemetery. Or the victory of socialism, that means the conscious active struggle of the international proletariat against imperialism and its method of war."^[4]
• "Most of those bourgeois women who act like lionesses in the struggle against 'male prerogatives' would trot like docile lambs in the camp of conservative and clerical reaction if they had suffrage."^[5] (Luxemburg's famous observation and critique of liberal feminism)
• "Imperialism is the political expression of the accumulation of capital in its competitive struggle for what remains still open of the non-capitalist environment."^[6]

BAaronA (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I was updating the lede to include a sentence about her education, but now I'm kinda confused. The source I'm reading which led me to this article ([10]) states:

At the university, Luxemburg first studied zoology but then turned to economics and philosophy (including lectures on modern philosophy up to Kant). She was one of the first women in Europe to obtain a PhD in economics. Her doctoral dissertation, defended in 1898, was titled “The Industrial Development of Poland.”

The article also both mentions a "Doctor of Law" and a doctorate of political economy. What does "Doctor of Law" mean in this context and is it correct? :3 F4U (they/it) 16:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, F4U, thank you for your contributions. I think it might be due to the differences between what "Doctor of Law" means in different countries? I just read in the Doctor of Law article lede that "The application of the term varies from country to country and includes degrees such as the Doctor of Juridical Science (J.S.D. or S.J.D), Juris Doctor (J.D.), Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), and Legum Doctor (LL.D.)". Since she studied philosophy as well, perhaps this is what they are referring to? I'm not certain though, to make sure we'd have to check what "Doctor of Law" meant at the University of Zurich in 1897 and if it included political economy. --Pitsarotta (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I just wanted to start a discussion about the recent addition to the article by UA0Volodymyr. Although I have not deleted any of the content added and I believe the direct quotes about Ukrainian nationalism from Luksemburg's work should stay on the page, I did change the personal additions made by the user to be more neutral and encyclopedic, as they were pushing a certain POV that is also present in the online article from Vynnychuk (which the user cites).

Of course, Róża Luksemburg has been called anti-Polish and anti-Jewish by Polish and Israeli nationalists, an ironic state of affairs given the fact she was herself a Polish woman from a family of assimilated Polish Jews. She fought against racism directed at all peoples, challenging Russification and Germanisation of Poles in her written works as well as condemning the pogroms as a nationalist distraction, a scapegoat exercise fuelled by the Russian tsarist authorities. However, because she opposed an independent Polish state as she believed no peoples can be truly free under capitalism (for her the class struggle took precedence over any national questions), this was enough for most Polish nationalists to disown and hate her despite her great love for Polish culture and literature.

All that said, it is understandable why in the present-day some see Luksemburg's comments about Ukrainians as anti-Ukrainian. She did single out Ukrainian nationalism against Czech, Polish, and Finnish nationalism by claiming that there was no real history to the idea of a Ukrainian state. While in 2024 this may seem absurd, when Luksemburg wrote this in 1918 it made sense. At that point there had never been an independent Ukrainian state, though of course the ancestral people of the Ukrainians – the Ruthenians – had established polities long before Muscovy/Russia, such as the Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia or the Cossack Hetmanate. Nevertheless, Ukrainian nationalism as we know it today was only taking its baby steps and the Ukrainian nation state did not yet exist. When Luksemburg wrote her work in 1918, efforts to create a new Ukrainian state were only a few months old.

Had Róża Luksemburg not been murdered and lived to see later developments, perhaps she would have changed her mind about Ukrainians. I'm sure she would have still opposed the creation of a Ukrainian state, just as she opposed the prospect of a capitalist Poland and all other states, but this is hypothetical. My point is that she wrote that work in 1918, when the idea of a sovereign Ukraine was very young and seemed unrealistic, so it seems unfair to judge her as if she had been writing today. Also, in the cited source, Vynnychuk only mentions her in the first part of the article and then goes on to talk about things that are completely different to her views. It is clear that the article serves a political purpose by taking an excerpt from one of Luksemburg's works and then talking about it without considering the rest of the entire body of her work, which was extremely critical of Russian imperialism and NEVER supported Russian tsarist subjugation of Ukrainians, Poles, Jews, Finns, Latvians or any other ethnic group. --Pitsarotta (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

She denied the Ukrainian national identity, culture, which is not only works of the Taras Shevchenko and by comparing the Ukrainians to Bavarians also the existence of the Ukrainian language as the separate one, which is clearly Ukrainophobic, see [11] and [12]. Also you didn't provide any secondary source citation for the "In her work The Russian Revolution, Luksemburg observed the newly emerging ideas of an independent Ukrainian state and criticised Ukrainian nationalism from a socialist perspective in that it would fracture the revolutionary movement, similarly to her calls against Polish independence under capitalism" sentence. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I didn't provide a source because you already have done that yourself – I am referring to the entire work (which I read a few years ago), not a single part of it taken out of context to push an agenda, as well as to the entire bibliography of Luksemburg's texts as a whole. Even if you're not familiar with her writings, it only takes one quick glance at some of the things she wrote to see that she never condoned Russian subjugation of Ukraine. She herself faced tsarist oppression on the basis of her native Polish language and Jewish ethnicity, along with her political views, and eventually had to flee Russian Poland.

As for her comments about the Ukrainian language, again you are outraged as if she had wrote that in 2024. Róża Luksemburg was born in 1871, whereas Yakiv Holovatsky used the linguonym Ukrainian language only in 1849, so even the name of the native language of the Ukrainians was not much older than Luksemburg herself. In fact, it wasn't even yet standardised by the time she was born, as in 1871 even Ukrainian thinkers and scholars still used the name Ruthenian-Ukrainian within Galicia; the transition from Ruthenian dialect/language and identity to Ukrainian language and nation was still in progress. The standardisation of the Ukrainian language and terminology surrounding it was something that was only happening during Luksemburg's lifetime, not long before like it is for us.

This is something that we need to understand when looking at the words of writers from over a century ago. For you and me, there is no doubt that Ukraine is a sovereign nation with its own state, government, language, and culture – all of which have just as much right to exist as any other culture. Most people, except for Russian nationalists and those supporting them, would agree with that. However, in 1918 this was not so obvious, and in the 19th century even less so. --Pitsarotta (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've provided a secondary source ([13]) for the general classification of their words on Ukrainians (In the The Russian Revolution work, Rosa Luxemburg is convinced that Ukrainians have never been a nation, have not had their own government, and have no national culture, except for the poetry of Taras Shevchenko. She compared them to Bavarians:). You didn't for the sentence you've added (Luksemburg observed the newly emerging ideas of an independent Ukrainian state and criticised Ukrainian nationalism from a socialist perspective in that it would fracture the revolutionary movement, similarly to her calls against Polish independence under capitalism) and this can be considered as original research, see WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:OR.

No, denying the existence of the Ukrainian language and comparing it to the others dialects to others language is clearly Ukrainophobic, no matter in 1918 or in 2024, the modern Ukrainian language developed from the Ruthenian (Old Ukrainian) in 18th century, 1798 Eneida is considered to be the first literary work published in it, however there are earlier works in the modern Ukrainian spoken language ([14]), and any denial of the existence of this language after this time is false and hateful. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry you're so offended by this. I've explained what I meant here as well as I could, but I don't think you want to understand because you are clearly quite angry about this. It's very late/early, so I'll only make one more point that'll hopefully help make my case here.

My mother tongue, Polish, began to emerge as a distinct language around the 10th century. The first known written sentence in Old Polish is dated to 1270. However, the earliest proper Polish literature was actually written in Latin due to it being the state language of Medieval Poland, the Church, and Catholic scholars of the time. It would be absurd of me to claim that Poland was an established country with its own language, culture, and history already in 966 when Mieszko I was baptised. Those were the early days for proto-Poland, with Christianisation being a gradual process that happened over centuries. The name Poland wasn't even used in written sources until the first half of the 11th century. Also, early Polish was more like a dialect and barely distinguishable from other varieties of Old Slavonic speech. It took hundreds of years for Polish and Poland as we know it today to develop. The same applies to Ukraine.

I've already responded why no other source is needed, the article as well as the sources used within speak for themselves. Anyway, please sleep on this and come back in a day or two once you've cooled off, maybe you will see then that there is some reason in what I'm saying. All the best and goodbye for now. --Pitsarotta (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand what the Polish has to do with Ukrainian and how does what you've written justify the xenophobic denial of the Ukrainian national identity and existence of the Ukrainian language.

No, you didn't, you have made up the original research with no secondary source, while I've originally provided one.

UA0Volodymyr (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Never mind, I've just had a look at your user page and saw that – up until 10th January of this year – all your profile contained was a massive image of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army flag. This organisation was responsible for the genocide of Poles, Jews, Czechs, and Russians during the 1940s, actively collaborating with the Nazi invaders, resulting in the deaths of up to 100.000 people. You espouse a murderous ideology and bring shame to the Ukrainian nation.

I can no longer believe ANY of your contributions here (both the actual article and this talk page) were made in good faith and take back all I've just said. It's ironic that someone who worships fascist killers would dare accuse anyone else of racism. I hope you see some sense one day. --Pitsarotta (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply