Talk:Kiev

Template:WikiProject Ukrainian subdivisions

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Modern City

Is there any chance someone could provide some information about the modern city, rather than its name or history? --Henrygb 23:19, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Accompanying image

I uploaded a photo of the city's main square. I'm not sure how appropriate it is, considering it was taken on a really hot summer day to illustrate how the people were cooling off in the fountains, but it was the best Kyiv photo I could find from my personal collection. I agree we should move on from the naming dispute and add more information about the beautiful modern city. --Iceager 02:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Khreshatyk is not an area, but a main street

People, Khreshatyk is a name of Kyiv's main street, not of a whole area. I'm not sure how to name the entire area since the street is situated right between two historical areas. One of them is Pechers'k and other is forgot-what-the-name-is. So somebody please correct the image note. Administratively, the street is situated in the edge of city's Pechers'ky rayon. But don't mind that: Kyiv's new bureaucratic subdivision is so amazing that we Kyivans can't get it for 3 years :(( AlexPU

Duly noted, and since I don't really know what to call the area either, I just indicated the names of the square and the street. --Iceager 04:47, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

History section update

I've just widened history section. To be continued for post-WWII period. Would somebody please check my non-native-English grammar? Relevant internal links are also wellcomed. Techno fans, please check the tram priority. I heard that Kyivan line was really the world's first. AlexPU

Infobox

I've added the proposed infobox (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukrainian subdivisions), and moved the first picture to the left to accommodate it. The layout seems a bit awkward; any better suggestions? Perhaps it could go into the bottom of the infobox? —Michael Z. 01:43, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)

Michael, I see a little design error with this particular infobox. The thumbnail map shows the location of Kyivs'ka oblast', not Kiev. While big map is OK with that. AlexPU 11:18, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Alex. I think that's because Steschke updated the image, but Wikipedia still hasn't flushed its cache and updated the small version. I've found it can take a day or so (very frustrating—I once uploaded about three versions of an image before I realized that it was working but I couldn't see the results). —Michael Z. 16:58, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)

Spelling of Kiev, revisited

Please check the past discussions of the issue before raising it!

I would like to suggest that users who want to raise this completely legitimate issue in the talk pages make sure to read a couple of previous discussions on this. They occurred at this talk page, also some are archived with the link at the very top. A couple of other talk pages where similar discussion took place relatively recently are: Talk:National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, Talk:History of Christianity in Ukraine, Talk:Ukraine,Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukrainian subdivisions (chapter On WP naming conventions and on). Please don't bring havoc to those pages by responding everywhere. Also, please exercise some restraint also here. Once I already suggested to create an article entitled something like Spellings of the Name of the Capital of Ukraine. The article would be devoted to how the city name was written, particularly in English, and why. It could also say about introduction of Kyiv spelling and how well (or badly) it succeeds. Its talk page Talk:Spellings of the Name of the Capital of Ukraine would relieve all other talk pages from this topic and, possibly, allow to reach some conclusion. We do need a conclusion. Opinions of the editors are strong and different and the WP needs consistency. If someone can write such an article, I would try my best to help. -Irpen 23:12, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

The arguments for using Kiev and Kyiv are both unasaillable. Kiev remains the article title because it's the most-used in English, which has been reinforced by a large Wikipedia poll. Kyiv shouldn't be characterized as succeeding or failing; its nature and usage should merely be documented.

Because of the changing nature of language usage, and because of the simple impracitability of new users' becoming familiar with all the previous discussion, I don't think we'll ever reach a conclusion (although such an article may limit the debate). Complete consistency is unlikely, and I would say undesirable. Look at the usage of Kharkiv/Kharkov, Dnieper/Dniepr/Dnepr/Dnipro, Vladimir/Volodymyr, Khmelnytsky/Chmielnitsky, etc., on Wikipedia. The use of each of these is appropriate in some places, and debatable in most of those.

The nature of the beast will continue to be fluid. We'll keep discussing these issues. But Wikipedia has great tracts of fallow fields, so for now let's try to focus more of our energy on writing good new material than on batting back and forth the finer points of particular names. —Michael Z. 2005-06-4 07:25 Z

However impractical it is for the users who want to dive into this topic to read EVERYTHING said on this previously, it is desirable that they read at least some of the previous discussions. We recently had several examples of, probably good willing but gullible, editors who just discovered how easy it is to edit the WP and just rushed into this "obvious" correcting. It only caused disruption and time of other editors that could be better spent on other improvements than on "calm down" calls and repetitive arguments. A separate article would not only limit the debate to a single place, but if well written, would help steer the debate by presenting some authoritative sources of information. The main problem is how to write it. Personally, I have no idea even where to start.

Consistency does not necessarily mean the universal usage everywhere in WP. A context dependent rule like Gdansk/Danzig is also a consistency. Now, personally I think that unlike Kharkov/Kharkiv (the former established in WW2 literature, the latter established in today's media) and Gdansk/Danzig there is no context to use Kyiv as the main name in most if not all articles, while introducing it in parentheses next to Kiev is often desirable, as I did before. But again, this is just my opinion and I am open to reaching a consensus which can be done only through a serious research and good will of all participants. The majority of those involved into this do have such a good will and a rule seems reachable to me. On the other hand, I simply don't see any positive side in what was happening recently is several Ukrainian related pages zealously edited towards so called "pro-Ukrainian" POV. They ended up restored to earlier versions already achieved through a long compromise. While a separate article does not exist yet, at least getting familiar with the debate beforing entering it would be a good thing to do. I would very much like to find a productive way to avoid such disruption, not to limit this legitimate debate. -Irpen 18:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

November 2004 Media usage review

I just wanted to note that, six months on from the debate, the spelling "Kyiv" has gained little if any ground. Kiev has been in the news lately, and I wanted to see how prevalent the new spelling was in the major English-language mass media. Results:

American newsmedia

CNN uses 'Kiev' [1] (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/11/25/ukraine/index.html)
The New York Times uses 'Kiev' [2] (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/25/international/europe/25cnd-ukraine.htm)
MSNBC uses 'Kiev' [3] (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6374820/)
The Washington Post uses 'Kiev' [4] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11187-2004Nov24.html)
Also CBS News, Bloomberg, Reuters all use 'Kiev'

British newsmedia

BBC News uses 'Kiev' [5] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4042979.stm)
The Guardian uses 'Kiev' [6] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukraine/story/0,15569,1359397,00.html)

Other English-language newsmedia

The Globe and Mail (Canada) uses 'Kiev' [7] (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041125.w2ukra1125/BNStory/International/)
The Times of India uses 'Kiev' [8] (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/935571.cms)
International Herald Tribune uses 'Kiev'
The Australian uses 'Kiev'

Indeed, the use of 'Kyiv' seems limited to CBC News, Radio Free Europe of the Czech Republic, Interfax of Russia, The Kyiv Post, and a handful of other minor players in the English-language newsmedia. CBC News is probably the most significant of the bunch, and the impact of their decision should be monitored. I note, however, that they are inconsistent. Google searches of cbc.ca shows 300 hits for "Kyiv" and 150 hits for "Kiev", giving the new spelling only a 2:1 majority. [9] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=site%3Acbc.ca+Kyiv&btnG=Search) [10] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=site%3Acbc.ca+Kiev&btnG=Search)

In a search on Google News (which archives only current news stories), a search for "Kiev" revealed 7,350 results [11] (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=Kiev&btnG=Search+News), and a search for "Kyiv" revelaed only 683 results, giving a ratio of more than 10 to 1 in favor of 'Kiev'.

Conclusion: The tide of change in favor of the spelling 'Kyiv' has not budged in English-language newsmedia over the course of 6 months. However, we should continue to monitor the change to see if use of 'Kyiv' by relatively minor players in the market has any impact. The current world standing of Ukraine-related news should have an accelerating effect on any trends that may be afoot. I will revisit these results in a month or two. Nohat 18:11, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Christian Science Monitor recently published an editorial on the use of Kyiv in journalism. Interesting perspective, but the writer is confused about the sound of the Ukrainian letter И. —Michael Z. 17:08, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

Why we're still chicken on 'Kyiv' (http://blogs.csmonitor.com/verbal_energy/2004/12/index.html#a0002927000), Ruth Walker, 2004-12-09.

Update February 23, 2005: Kiev [12] (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=kiev&btnG=Search+News) still has a more than 10 to 1 lead over Kyiv [13] (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=kiev&btnG=Search+News) at Google News. (4310 to 394 hits). Google web hits have a smaller proportional advantage for "Kiev +Ukraine" vs "Kyiv +Ukraine" at 4.6 to 1 (2880000 to 621000 hits), but still a commanding lead. Nohat 02:48, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

March 2005: Kiev is this year's host of the Eurovision Song Contest. Their site,[14] (http://www.eurovision.tv/english/index.htm), their liturature, and the official posters for the event use Kiev not Kyiv. Dmn / Դմն 15:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In April 2005, it was announced that the official host city of the 2005 Eurovision Song Contest was to be known as Kyiv, not Kiev. Previously, it was being advertised as "Kiev 2005", but is now being advertised as "Kyiv 2005".

April 2005: With regards to the above comment about Eurovision Song Contest, their site, after consultation with many bodies including the European Broadcasting Union, has been changed to use Kyiv instead of Kiev. I personally support a move to show the article as Kyiv, with Kiev being used as a redirect. jw 00:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Surely you don't expect the policy to be changed on the basis of the Eurovision Song Contest's choice of spelling, do you? Nohat 01:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course not, no. The point I was trying to get across is that if one of the largest musical events in Europe have changed from Kiev to Kyiv, then it shows that Kyiv is becoming the more widely accepted name. jw 01:46, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How to introduce Kiev/Kyiv spellings in the intro

There is much said elswhere not only about titling the article but also about usage, so I will not go into this now. Most who have interest in this have already heard each other. If anyone is new to this discussion, leave me a message at my talk page and I will give references to earlier discussions. Now, to the issue at hand, which is how to start the article and introduce both names in the beginning. After my last change the article starts as follows:

Kiev (Template:Lang-ua; Template:Lang-ru), also Kyiv, is the capital and largest city of Ukraine...

Two issues were subject to editing recently:

1. Why would the Russian version be there just next to Ukrainian, and why then not put also other versions inserted by anon (Czech, Polish, Finnish, etc.)? There are several reasons for that. One: Russian version happen to coinside with conventional English spelling. Whether the latter was simply derived from the former or whether it was derived from older historical spellings is a matter of debate, but the fact is still noteworthy. Two: Kiev for the most of the last 350 years or so was a part of the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union which called it Киев Three: one may argue what percentage of Kievans consider Russian their first mother tongue and the estimates vary between one third and three quaters (my personal opinion is that it is closer to the second number but never mind this), but in this range it is significant anyway and it also increases the relevance of the Russian name. This above is not about whether to call the town Kiev or Kyiv (which is more or less agreed). This is about whether to mention or not Киев right next to Київ.
2. How do we introduce "Kyiv" spelling to the reader for the first time? I changed. "Kiev or Kyiv..." to "Kiev, also Kyiv, ..." because the latter variant seems to better reflect the reality. Kyiv has become an alternative English spelling, but still used rather infrequently in English media, with Canadian Broadcasting Corp. being so far the only major player who uses it. So, "also" seems to reflect this better than "or".

If anon or others disagree, please raise your objections at this page. Irpen 21:46, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

More about Kyiv-Kiev

Indeed, "many cities have different names in English than in their native language, such as Moscow and Warsaw." But let's try not to forget that they came to English language directly. English-speaking travellers/researchers heard these names directly from the native-speakers of those lands and then simplified/changed them according to the phonetic rules/habits of their language/pronunciation. So, here we can observe a direct connection between the original name in the native language and its interpretation in English. Another example is London. In French it is Londres, in Latin it was called Londinium. But again it was a direct transfer of the name from one language to the other, without any "mediators". However, the situation with Kyiv is different. Native population of Ukraine spoke and still speaks Ukrainian. But for some reasons Englishmen use Russian pronunciation. It's strongly connected with the history of Ukraine. Our country was occupied by Russians for many centuries and didn't have its souvereignity and independence. This fact gave different researchers the reasons to use the official name of the city in the state language of the country to which it belonged. The state language of Russian Empire and Soviet Union was Russian that's why it was justified to use only Russian name of the city. But now the situation has changed. We've got independence and our state language, which is Ukrainian. So, it's time for the world to change its attitude to Ukraine and accept the new spelling. The world did it with other cities and countries, so why doesn't it do the same with Kyiv. I'll give you couple examples. Why don't English writers use the old German name of the used to be German city Keonigsberg? Right now it's called Kaliningrad. What's wrong with them? Why don't they use the old name? Or what about Lemberg, which is now Lviv (Ukraine)? Or what about Laibach, which is now Ljubliana (Slovenia)? Why don't the Germans use the old names of these cites? The answer is because the situation has changed and those who don't want to notice this are just blind and stubborn. Maybe these examples are not perfect, because the whole names were changed, not the way of the spelling. However, this can give you an idea of what I mean. Just imagine how it would feel for Englishmen if Russians, Germans, Ukrainians and so on started using the French spelling of their capital. London sounds as London in Ukrainian, Russian, German. People in these countries use their own pronunciation of the city's name, not the French "Londres". However they could use the tradition from the times of the Norman ivasion and use the French spelling, the spelling of the invadors. Sounds like nonsence? It is nonsence indeed! The same as using Russian "Kiev" for Ukrainian city of Kyiv. That's why everybody should start spelling the name of Ukrainian capital correctly. It is KYIV. (Unsigned by anon, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC))

By this time, I do not think anyone involved in the discussion here is not aware of the points you so vividly illustrated, yet alone is going try to prove you wrong (because, apart from some understandable POV, you are not). The one and only reason why "Kiev" is still being used over "Kyiv" is because Wikipedia follows the most accepted conventions, and the use of "Kiev" certainly is more common (people are stubborn, they resist changes). Wikipedia's goal is not to promote now spellings, no matter how correct they are; it is to report on what's currently accepted as a norm. When norms change, Wikipedia will adjust and change too. "Kiev" is used as a title not because Wikipedia is run by evil Russian hegemonic occupants who try to tailor the English language according to their imperial view of the world, but simply because this spelling is (still) six times more common (according to a primitive Google search) than the one you want to see. If the name offends you that much, chances are many others feel the same way as well, which will sooner or later lead the "Kyiv" spelling being more common than "Kiev". When that happens, the article will be renamed. Until then, please calm down.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:39, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Kiyev spelling found

Not that I want to start ANOTHER edit war... ;) But I just wanted to point something out, purely informationally (and just for fun, not wanting to ruffle any feathers): I have a copy of a 1963 world atlas (the Reader's Digest Great World Atlas, to be exact). The two major contributing editors were a member of the American Geographic Society, and a Professor of Geography at Cambridge, England. And in their map, the city is spelled: Kiyev --JohnDBuell | Talk 02:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the faraway Soviet times (like early to mid-80's) I remember seeing Kiyev as well as Kijev on the road signs where sometimes Russian or Ukrainian text was duplicated with Latin letters. At those times, caring for foreign tourists was not something that was done much in the SU and even less anyone bothered about consistency in signs, tourist brochures, etc. The Kiyev variant is simply a phonetic transliteration of how the city name Киев sounds in Russian. Since Kiyev is never used in modern English language media, this is nothing more than an interesting piece of trivia and not the material for this article. We can only guess why the authors of the Atlas referred above chose to apply a phonetic transliteration rather do a letter by letter Cyrillic to Latin conversion. -Irpen 05:27, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I only brought it up to be a trivia point, I never had any intention of including it in the main article. Most of the contributors of this particular atlas were from the USA, several from London, UK, and it also gives credit to the USSR Academy of Science, Moscow, for unspecified contributions. If this was a Soviet-era Latin alphabet spelling, I can only surmise the Atlas's editors were just reprinting placenames from a Soviet source, not a native Ukranian one. --JohnDBuell | Talk 06:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More interestingly, Google gives over 7000 matches on 'Kiyev' but suggests 'Kiev'. --JohnDBuell | Talk 06:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC).

... and about 5000 hits on (Kijow OR Kijów) [15] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&rls=GGLC%2CGGLC%3A1969-53%2CGGLC%3Aen&as_qdr=all&q=Kijow+OR+Kij%C3%B3w&lr=lang_en) among English l. sites only :). Irpen

Kijów in Kiev article

Witkacy wrote: "The city was part of the Kijów Voivodship, Poland for 200 years, so what is your problem?--Witkacy 18:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)"

Hi Witkacy, I have absolutely no problem with this fact of the city's history as well as with its being covered in the history section of the Kiev article where the name Kijów belongs. (BTW, so far it got only little coverage there if at all and your contribution would be of help). All I mean is that this is inappropriate to have this name mentioned in the very first line of the article based on that. Kiev being the part of the Russian Empire and Soviet Union is only one of several reasons why the Russian name is there (see earlier talk). I see Kijów Voivodship entirely appropriate in its own context but not in the first line of the article where the names that introduce the city for the first time are listed. The recent mess with PL names being added for the cities in Germany has already generated enough controversy. Let's just be a little more careful. So, I will revert this, and I hope this sounds convincing. Please, no flames -Irpen 18:37, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Having the Polish name for Kiev as the third piece of information in the article is ridiculous. We can include the Polish name in the section that discusses the Polish history of city. The Polish name is only marginally relevant, and having it in the first sentence is totally unnecessary clutter. (This is an agreement with Irpen) Nohat 18:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem with German names was completely different - the war started when some users around Chris 73 began to add German names in articles like Lechia Gdansk etc., its like someone would add the Polish name of Kiev to the FC Arsenal Kyiv article... All Polish articles with important cities, which belonged to Germany after the partitions of Poland, have the German in the first line of the article. As i already said Kiev was 200 years the seat of the Voivodship Governor of the Kijów Voivodship and part of Poland. Befor that, the city was part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania which was in personal union with Poland. So why should not the Polish name be mentioned in the first line? Especially in the context that - for an example - Rumia have the German name in the first line, but was a non important village populated by Poles in times when it was part of Germany.--Witkacy 19:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article has two names in the first line: Kiev as most commonly used English name (which also happen to coincide with the Russian name and the reasons for that is a separate issue being still hotly debated), and Kyiv a Ukrainian name used by the Urkainian government and, although infrequently but since recently somewhat more commonly, in English. Kijów is not used outside Poland, except for the part of the history when the city was under the PL or R-P. I am all for using Kijów in this context! Why won't you feel the gaps in the appropriate section of the article instead of fighting for Kijów in the first line? The deletion of Kijów from the first line was done through a consensus and it will simply not make it there as far as I can see. I don't even need to delete it myself, because then someone else will. Please understand, that this has nothing to do with anti-Polish sentiment of anyone. Actually, there is none in Kiev and among those who follow this article. There is a much stronger anti-Russian or "pro-Russian" sentiment in some UA-related articles and it causes enough trouble already. Let's not open another area for these fights. If you feel like writing about the Polish and Lithuanian period of the city history, I would be glad to help with sources and anything I can. I am not competent enough to write on this myself. Regards, -Irpen 19:48, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Please visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Vote on city naming. You may find this of interest. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

a Kijów/Kiev end note (hopefully)

Thanks to all for stopping this reversion cycle. Since WP:Point is a guideline and not a policy, I can see it might be acceptable under extreme circumstances. When pushed to an extreme stress in an unrelated DE-PL name dispute, several editors chose the Kiev article to make a point. Understandably, I was unhappy about it (I desperately want this to become a better article than it is) but I understand the "consistency and justice for all" logic. Since the intent of the effort was transparently given, I never saw this as foul play and I was simply requesting a cleanup. I was already unhappy about myself reverting the article more than once in a single day (and this was NOT vandalism which I revert comfortably). Approaching or not the 3RR limit I simply didn't want to continue this myself. Therefore I requested a self-reversion from the other side, but another user just went ahead and reverted even sooner. In any case, if we can get together and improve the city article, including the Kijów Voivodship period, I would be eager to give to it whatever time I have. Cheers, -Irpen 02:15, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Restructuring in progress

People, I've started a major widening and restructuring of the article. That's why some of the earlier passages were removed - only to include them in the future following sections. I consider most of them correct, while few are factually mistaken in details. The old version of the introduction will be placed here to preserve its info

Kiev, officially Kyiv (Київ, Kyiv in Ukrainian; Киев, Kiev in Russian; Kijów in Polish) is the capital and largest city of Ukraine, and has officially around 2.6 million inhabitants, although the large number of unregistered domestic immigrants would probably raise this figure to about 4 million.

Kiev is located in north central Ukraine, at 50° 25′ N, 133° 43′ E. The Dnipro (Dnieper) river flows south through the city towards the Black Sea; in the west is the 'old city' of Pechersk, built on the hills overlooking the right bank, where the famous Lavra monastery is located. Also in the west are the city center, government buildings, embassies, theatres, and most local industrial complexes. On the east side of the river lie several residential areas, and the nearby Boryspil international airport.

The city has a three line metro system (total length 54.8 km), and extensive bus, tram, and trolleybus routes. On weekends, the streets of Khreschatyk (the center of the city) are closed to vehicular traffic, in favor of pedestrians. Visitors to Kiev in May can catch the springtime festival [16] (http://www.uazone.net/Kiev.html).

Best wishes, AlexPU

Famous Kievans section

I don't think there should be a famous people section. Many of these people are hardly famous, or famous only for specialists. Besides, Kyiv is a big city, undoubtedly having a decent impact on the world, and this section could become so bloated that the article looks absurd. I say we remove this. Crculver 01:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This seems like a valid point. A good fraction of Ukrainians is associated with Kiev in some way. The fully expanded section would be like 50% of the List of Ukrainians. I think the section should be just dropped. --Gene s 08:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Don't get your point, guys. I've got the idea of the section from the Warsaw (and may be dozens of other cities have such). So should we "drop" the section for Kyiv only (which looks like a censorship or a discrimination)? If so, I would oppose the deletion as a matter of principle. If you suggest it for every each city page in Wikipedia, the question should be solved under a highest-level procedures (voting, Wiki rules etc). BTW, could a transforming of the section to separate List of Kyivans be the better decision to avoid bloating?

As for the selection of the people, don't get your point also. The section (or list) is aimed to link a reader to the particular persons (and, in a way, to promote their pages), not to prove something about the city. I've handpicked the persons in the section to select only those globally-important. If they are hardly famous for some reader - may be he/she should work on his/her own erudition ;) ? Anyway, I'm willing not only to discuss the particular candidates, but also to establish strict criteria and quantity limits for the section. Best wishes,AlexPU

First of all, this is a talk page. It's used for discussion. We are discussing. No harm done, right? Let's try to actually discuss the merits instead of rattling with "censorship" or "discrimination".

Second, if Warsaw page does something wrong, it does not mean that every other page should do the same. OK, there are city articles listing related people by name. There are city articles that aren't (for example, NYC). Thus you argument "Foo does it, so Bar must do it too" does not work.

If you want to list honorary citizens, it's useful. But listing pretty much everybody from the List of Ukrainians is wrong. Try to work out a useful criteria first (you list Klichko, but not Bubka, Bilgakov, but not Malevich. Is it "censorship" or "discrimination"?). You will quickly see that it's nearly impossible. --Gene s 15:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If the section's length is at issue, it can easily be moved to a separate article at Famous Kievans if and when it grows long. —Michael Z. 2005-01-31 16:11 Z

My objection primarily concerns the fact that pretty much any famous person is related to the capital of his/her country. The list of Famous Kievans will not be saliently different from the List of Ukrainians. They will be the same for like 50% or more of entries. Maybe this list thing is better addressed through categories. The lists of famous residents work for small towns, but not for cities/capitals. --Gene s 05:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Look at the ugly thing this section had grown in Saint Petersburg. --Gene s 06:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First of all, Genes, you do list anyone you think is important. And discuss deletion of anybody. It is not a censorship from my side.

About "harm" and examples from other cities. Unfortunately, there are too many propagandists and politically-biased vandals here on WP. The equality and standardization among cities may be just another argument against them. Hence my preemptive attack. Although I agree that Warsaw list is unnecessarily deep.

What we can benefit from your opinion, is that I should work further on both Kyivans section and List of Ukrainians. Indeed, I 'm coming to the conclusion that those working/living in the city do not belong here. As for excessive correlation with List of Ukrainians - it's about the incompleteness of that list, not the overcrowding of the Kyivans. Definitely, two lists should not copy each other even in 50% of the names. I mean three parts of Ukraine (not to mention diaspora and Ukrainian immigrants) have lived separately for few centuries. So I guess a dozen of important Ukrainians have never been to Kyiv. BTW, this kind of logic may be even more useful for NYC famous people - since US is a decentralized country with several important centers.

So my suggestions, people:

We work further on the criteria and limits
We can delete living/working section (although I suspect Vernads'ky should be in "born" subsection)
We get ready to move the section into separate page when it grows long (which would never happen if we adopt criteria : ) )
Waiting for new candidates

Best wishes, AlexPU

Deleted the "living/working" subsection following recurrent reader claims. Waiting for further suggestions. Pryvit, AlexPU

Guys, I would like to second the opinion that the Kiev article does not need a famous Kievans section. Such section is appropriate for smaller and relatively obscure cities whose famous people may help "put it on the map" of the world or of the region at least. Kiev already is very well on the map and it is obvious that a city of this scale had to produce lots of famous people. While a separate Famous Kievans article is rather harmless (whether it is useful, I am still not sure), such section in Kiev article harms the article by diluting it. Irpen 04:32, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

I just deleted the Famous Kievans section from the article for the reasons noted above ten days ago. There is no need for a place of the scale of Kiev to have a list of its famous people in its article. One thing is for a small town of Stebliv, Cherkas'ka oblast', article to mention its native Ivan Nechuy-Levyts'ky (a Ukrainian writer), it prides for. Quite another thing is Kiev, which relates to hundreds or thousands of famous people.

Generally, the article needs to be reworked thoroughly (at least I feel so). Unfortunately, I don't have enough knowledge and skill to rewrite it, but I would be happy to help if someone takes upon this project. Cheers, Irpen 21:34, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Reasons of capital move to Kharkiv

This relates to a recent inclusion of the statement: "Kharkiv was declared its capital due to it being more dominated by the working class and ethnic Russians"

I reverted the inclusion of the latter claim. I don't have ideological problems with this possibility. The problem I have with it is that inclusion of unconventional ideas to encyclopedia articles should be made with caution. This idea is unconventional. I have not heard of it at all, which of course does not mean it cannot be true. However, this needs to be sourced to some respectable sources. If others can provide references, lets look and discuss them at the talk page. The sources should be, at least somewhat, academic rather publications in selectively picked highly POV web sites or newspapers. Once we reach some consensus, we can move this into the article. Please, no flames! Irpen 01:58, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't think this is a controversial statement at all.

Instead, the real problem with the sentence (as it originally was) is that it takes the official Soviet position at face value: "due to it being dominated by the working class" -- rather than the more likely reason, that the early Soviet government mistrusted the Ukrainians and believed a more Russified city would be more politically reliable. For obvious reasons, there are no statements by Lenin to this effect, but it is entirely consistent with Soviet policy before and after.

The Soviet POV, I would contend, appears all too often in Wikipedia. Quite often this is, as above, by the omission of uncomfortable details. Several articles about WWII, for example Hero City, fail(ed) to mention the Hitler-Stalin Pact while discussing the German invasion in 1941.

--ProhibitOnions 12:15, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)

"I don't think this is a controversial statement at all". I do not think it is controversial either. And besides, I don't care. Many facts or widespread intepretations are included in wikipedia that can be called controversial. The problem with this statement is that it is unconventional. It is also a POV but the POV or not discussion will become relevant when we establish at least some acceptance of this interpretation among academics. The rest here is your own speculations. They sound credible, but they are unsupported as of now. Not only they are not supported by official statements, as you point out. You are right, that such official statements would not have been given in any case. This POV is unsupported among historians. As I said, refer to some respected sources rather than your own inferences which may or may not be valid.

As for the Soviet POV flooding the Wikipedia, this is irrelevant. Each corrections should be included based on its own merit. I will respond to your "Hero City" line on the relevant talk page. Irpen 20:08, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

As the author of the disputed passage, I agree with Ipren's claim. Sorry, I've substituted fact with analysis. The better form for my idea would be more dominated (...) and Bolsheviks (since the fact that 1920s Bolshevism in Ukraine was a predominantly Russian/Jewish movement). However, I've not read the whole discussion. Hope to do it off-line and make proper changes. Best wishes, AlexPU

This is the sentence Irpen has reverted to:

The Bolsheviks took control of Kiev in 1920. After the Ukrainian SSR was formed under Moscow rule, Kharkiv was declared its capital due to it being more dominated by the working class. In 1934, the capital was moved back to Kiev, starting a new period of growth and the reestablishment of a Ukrainian spirit (mostly by migrants).

This accepts the official Soviet point of view without any question. Kharkiv was considered potentially more loyal, which is why the capital was moved there. The Soviet claim that this was because of the working class MUST be treated with skepticism or qualified, which this does not do. I wrote the following instead, which both neutralizes this statement without removing it and adds an alternative without endorsing it:

After the Ukrainian SSR was formed under Moscow rule, Kharkiv was declared its capital, ostensibly because it was more dominated by the working class, although Bolshevik suspicions of Ukrainian "bourgeois nationalism" likely played a role in moving the capital to a city both closer to Russia proper and with a large number of ethnic Russians.

This is NOT, as Iphren claims, "original research." This is, as many historians concede, very likely the exact reason why this was done, just as the Soviet capital moved from St. Petersburg to Moscow for reasons of geography and class. However, as there was, for clear reasons, never a statement from Lenin or others saying "We mistrust Ukrainians" it is also qualified. Soviet neologisms were often used, "bourgeois nationalism" being one of them, duly cited in the text in quotation marks. You cannot accept statements at face value, especially not those of a dictatorship, which is what these paragraphs do.

Now, the famine. Interesting how Iphren doesn't think a genocide of millions of the regime's opponents doesn't rate a brief mention, even though it is directly related to the subsequent move of the capital back to Kiev, as Ukrainian opposition had been largely neutralized, and Stalin's purges and Russification program were in full swing. Yes, as Iphren puts it on the revert, a full discussion of the "famine info belongs to other articles," but a brief mention of it to provide the historical context is germane; in fact, to omit it entirely is to collude with Soviet propaganda:

In 1934, after Stalin's deliberate famine of 1933 had killed an estimated 7 to 11 million people, including much of the country's anti-Communist peasantry, the capital was moved back to Kiev, starting a new period of growth and migration from other parts of the Soviet Union.

I'm still not happy with the last part of the sentence, because the migration it refers to occured partly for the same reasons, as the Soviet Union incontrovertibly found Russians more trustworthy than other groups. However, I did chop out the "the reestablishment of a Ukrainian spirit," which is editorializing, and the opposite of the intended effect of the migration.

Notice that this is indeed NPOV, I didn't say "because of the famine" or "due to their preference for ethnic Russians" or whatever. If someone objects to the wording, fine, rewrite it. But I have the feeling that the person who simply reverted this passage, along with a similar article elsewhere, did so for reason other than love of neutral phrasing. --ProhibitOnions 13:06, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

More on changes made to "Early Soviet Rule and World War II section"

I will not respond to the personal attack directed at "the person who simply reverted this passage...". As for the substance of the issue:

1. Reasons of Capital move to Kharkov. ProhibitOnions introduced to the article an idea that one of the reasons of the capital move was the fact Kharkov's was more dominated by ethnic Russians than Kiev. This claim has some logic in the context of the events, but I have not seen this claim made in any serious source. If this is due to my ignorance, I suggest ProhibitOnions provides at least some references, or, if he can't find them off hand, at least gives some hints where he saw this info, so that it can be checked. His statement on the talk page that "many historians concede" on this is too vague of a reference. If this is indeed his own speculation based on his interpretation of the logic of events, this qualifies as original research, whose place is current scholary or popular publications, personal web-sites, etc., but not an encyclopedia, which should reflect an established knowledge.

2. Possible role of famine in the capital return to Kiev. PO agrees, that the detalied discussion of the issue belongs to other articles but thinks, its mention is also relevant here. My point is that this info is factually accurate, but its relevance is too remote. Deliberate killing of milions of people was a horrible crime, but Kiev itself, unlike the vast regions of Ukrainian countryside, was not ravaged by famine. Should the info on the deliberate famine caused by the actions of the Bolshevik government be introduced into every article related to any Ukrainian topic? If PO helps me understand why famine should be in Kiev article, I am open to ideas.

3. Finally, PO removed from the article the statement that Kiev growth was mostly caused by migration from other parts of Ukraine which indeed started a period of re-establishment of a Ukrainian spirit in the city. This is confirmed, for example, by a relative rise of Ukrainian theater and literature in Kiev at the time. He substituted it by the statement about "the migration from other parts of the Soviet Union." Where does he get this info?

The changes he introduced seem ideological rather that relevant and I reverted them once which was followed by PO restoring them. Now, I laid out my objections. I am looking forward for the responses and will wait for some days before making changes to the current version of the article. Please, no flames. Irpen 19:02, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

OK, the note above has been up for almost a week and no one posted any objections. I will wait for another day or two and, unless ProhibitOnions or someone else steps in with any claims that substantiate the questionable info, I will restore the paragraph on Kiev<-> Kharkov capital moves to the version that existed before PO made his changes. Again, if any serious sources can support the claims he makes, just mention them here. Thanks, and please no flames. Irpen 22:25, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Quote: Ukrainian Київ is pronounced KY-yeev

Not very helpful. Exactly what pronunciation is "KY-yeev" meant to represent? Can we have it in IPA please? -- Picapica 12:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

or , if I got my IPA correct. These are variations in dialect or even just register; for the article I think it would be sufficient to put in the phonological transcription . —Michael Z. 2005-03-24 14:56 Z

Many thanks, Michael! If you could oblige with the IPA for the Russian pronunciation too, I'll add them to the article -- Picapica 22:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't speak Russian, so someone else should review this before it goes in the article. I understand it's something like or . —Michael Z. 2005-03-24 22:24 Z

In most of the Slavonic languages, final consonants are unvoiced. Smirnoff's brand vodka was named after a follow named Smirnov, for example. As a result, is perhaps preferable.

Is that referring to the Russian? I've never heard any Ukrainian pronounce it that way. —Michael Z. 2005-03-25 07:06 Z

It's referring to the Ukrainian. I would imagine that Ukrainian follows the trend of devoicing final consonants, since many other Slavonic languages, such as Russian and Bulgarian, do the same. Crculver 09:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ukrainians don't pronounce it that way. —Michael Z. 2005-03-25 17:33 Z

Neither Belarussians. BTW IMO all these IPA & SAMPA are useless for plain folks. The best thing is to link a sound file. As for unvoiced final consonants, this is also a popular misocnception of simplification. If a word is followed by something voiced (I will not go into details), then the final consonant is not devoiced, so you must pronounce "Kiev is a nice place", not "Kieff is a nice place" or in russian: "Kiev rastyot", not "Kieff rastyot". There are quite a few sound interferences in east slavic languages,even if to forget about dialectal ones. So knowing a very detailed pronunciation of an isolated word will not always help you in a continuous speech. Mikkalai 19:23, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I deleted this sentence as misleading.

The Russian spelling is Ки́ев, pronounced KEE-if; Ukrainian Київ is pronounced KY-yeev.

A random English speaker will never guess how to pronounce "KY" here. There is no corresponding sound in English at all. Also, "-if" in Russian is very dubious too. The only thing can help is sound file. Mikkalai 23:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How old is Kiev?

This 1500 years number is rather arbitraty and trying to get even more precise as anon did is meaningless. The celebration of 1500 anniversary in 1982 was a very rough guess combined with a political debate around "how much is enough" and Brezhnev's visit to Ukraine. I checked several online encyclopediae. Brtiannica says: "Archaeological evidence suggests that Kiev was founded in the 6th or 7th century AD". Groiler online says: "Kiev was first mentioned in Russian chronicles in 860" (note that Primary Chronicle was complied in 12th century). Columbia says: " It probably existed as a commercial center as early as the 5th cent. A Slavic settlement on the great trade route between Scandinavia and Constantinople, Kiev was tributary to the Khazars when the Varangians under Oleg established themselves there in 882.". Americana says: "The founding of Kiev has been placed in the second half of the 5th century, and the city's 1,500th anniversary was celebrated in May 1982". This pretty much sums it up. Lets not try to get any specific in what's not known even roughly. -Irpen 19:23, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Historical Summary in the lead

I think the expansion and revamping of this section is dove very well. Thanks Piotrus. Proposed changes:

Historically, Kiev is one of the most ancient and important cities of the region, the center of...

currently: [[Rus]] [[civilization]]...

suggested: [[Rus' (people)|Rus' civilization]]...

survivor of numerous wars, purges and genocides. Many historical and architectural landmarks are preserved or reconstructed in the city, which is thought to have existed as early as the 5th century A.D. With the exact time of city foundation being hard to determine, May 1982 was chosen to celebrate the city's 1,500th anniversary. During the eighth and ninth centuries Kiev was an outpost of the Khazar empire.

currently: At some point during the late ninth or early tenth century Kiev fell under the rule of Varangians and became the nucleus of the [[Rus]] polity. Until 1169 Kiev was the capital of the [[Kievan Rus']].

suggested: At some point during the late [[9th century|9th]] or early [[10th century]] Kiev fell under the rule of Varangians and became the nucleus of the [[Etymology of Rus and derivatives|Rus']] polity, which became known as Kievan Rus'.

From 1362 it was part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and from 1569 a part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569, as a capial of Kijów Voivodship...

currently: In 17th century it was annexed into the Muscovy (later Russian Empire).

suggested: In 17th century it fell under the Muscovy (later Russian Empire). (It seems to me "annexed" doesn't fit, see Treaty of Andrusovo).

I am not sure that 'fell under' is a good expression in English. Perhaps 'eventually annexed' would be better? It was eventually annexed, wasn't it? Although I admit I am no specialist in non-PLC history, and I compiled this lead mostly from the article's own history section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the term "annexed" applies here well. The EB's lead to "annexation" article calls it: "a formal act whereby a state proclaims its sovereignty over territory hitherto outside its domain. Unlike cession, whereby territory is given or sold through treaty, annexation is a unilateral act made effective by actual possession and legitimized by general recognition.. Other ref sources also have an emphasis that annexation usually means the more forceful, more uniletaral taking posession of the territory. In view of series of conflicts and treaties (Pereyaslav, above mentioned Andrusovo and the "Eternal Peace Treaty"), "annexation" seems to strong. Perhaps we should just say "fell under" Muscovy. -Irpen 19:27, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

An important Russian industrial revolution in the late 19th century, Kiev became the capital of several short-lived Ukrainian states following the turbulent period of Russian Revolution and Polish-Soviet War. From 1921 the city was

currently: part of the Soviet Union, until becaming the capital of idependent Ukraine following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

suggestion: ..part of the Soviet Union, since 1934 as a capital of Soviet Ukraine. It now remains the capital of Ukraine, independent since 1991 following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I think suggested changes are non-controversial. If anyone disagrees, please raise your objections here. I will wait for comments before introducing this. Thanks! -Irpen 17:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I am glad you like the expanded lead. Note that I have done the same with Minsk, so you may want to correct it there as well. If this meets with approvement, perhaps expantion, rather then reverts, will became the standard in those city-names cases :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's hope it will be so. I responded to "annexation" part within the text above and will look at Minsk later. -Irpen 19:27, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Kiev"