Jump to content

Talk:Boikivske

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MOVE request 25 Feb 2017

[edit]

Telmanove → Boikivske This request in already reflected in Ukrainian Wikipedia as move of Telmanove to Boikivske https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Бойківське — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.155.216.28 (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 May 2016 (last edited on 20 July 2016), Parliament of Ukraine voted to rename city to "Бойківське" with the following words in link provided below

  • In Ukrainian:

"Відповідно до пункту 29 частини першої статті 85 Конституції України, пункту 8 статті 7 Закону України "Про засудження комуністичного та націонал-соціалістичного (нацистського) тоталітарних режимів в Україні та заборону пропаганди їхньої символіки", враховуючи рекомендації Українського інституту національної пам’яті, Верховна Рада України постановляє: 1. Перейменувати такі населені пункти та райони: 1) у Донецькій області:" ... "Тельманівський район на Бойківський; селище міського типу Тельманове на селище міського типу Бойківське;"

  • which translates to English as:

According to paragraph 29 of Article 85 of the Constitution of Ukraine, of paragraph 8 of Article 7 of the Law of Ukraine "On the condemnation of Communist and National Socialist (Nazi) totalitarian regimes in Ukraine and the prohibition of propaganda of their symbols," including the recommendations of the Ukrainian Institute of National Remembrance, Parliament Ukraine decides: 1. Rename the following towns and villages: 1) in the Donetsk region " ... "Telmanivskii district to Boikivskii; urban village Telmanove to urban village Boikivske; "

(in English:　Boikivske based on Law of Ukraine 55 in force since 2010．　See also Romanization of Ukrainian)

  • Reference: Ukrainian government website. Law № 1466-VIII від 14.07.2016. [1]
  1. ^ "DECREE. Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. About renaming of some localities and districts in the temporarily occupied territories of Donetsk and Luhansk regions". 12 May 2016.
As for the example of Krasnoperekopsk, I should notice that it is a wrong example. The city was also renamed by the Ukrainian parlament, but the resolution has not yet come into force, so officially it is still Krasnoperekopsk even for the Ukrainian state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergii Riabenko (talk • contribs) 17:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The established practice is actually to assume that most Ukrainian (and, for that matter in other countries) locations have no established English name, and thus the title of the page would be the romanization of the name commonly used on the territory of the locality. For the vast majority of localities it would be just Ukrainian names. However, for the localities on the territories not controlled by the Ukrainian government this would be the name of the locality used on that territory (in this case, Telmanove). I am not a big fan of Communist era names, but the population knows the settlement as Telmanove, and it is at this point not up to the Ukrainian government to change this. If you want to change this practice, a general RfC will probably be in order, since the question is not just about Telmanove but about a number of localities renamed by the Ukrainian government which are not controlled by it.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I am not convinced that there is evidence that the common name in English is Boikivske. I noticed that one of sources that was cited as evidence of the change,[1] found it necessary to quote the name Telmanove, so that readers would know where they were referring to. This might be taken as evidence that readers of Kyiv Post know where Telmanove is and have to be told that Boikivske is the new name for Telmanove.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of neutrality of name

[edit]

@Ymblanter, Sergii Riabenko, and Toddy1: Hello The status of the name Boykivske needs to be increased and written near Telmanove, that is, at the very beginning of the article as an equal. The fact that the name shoved in the middle of the text - in general there is a violation of neutrality about the disputed territories. The reader of the article is entitled to see two names at once in the beginning. The reader does not immediately see the second name - he needs to look for it in of the text. Such a placement Boykivske makes by status is not significant. Recall Boykivske - official according to the jurisdiction of the official authority of Ukraine. It must be respected at the Telmanove level. Unfortunately, now it's not--Bohdan Bondar (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)--Bohdan Bondar (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is now prominently mentioned (bolded) in the lead paragraph. If you want to rais iit even higher, please suggest here the formulation of the lead paragraph, possibly after other users comment.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added the population and reorganized the lead paragraph, pls have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the new name to the infobox.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 November 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: pages moved. Andrewa (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– I did some research via Google results to find a WP:COMMONNAME here. In normal web search, when I search Boikivske/Boykivske [2] vs Telmanove [3] I find that the names are roughly even in terms of raw results (279 vs 288 results), though many of the "Telmanove" sources are referring to the town in a historical sense, or saying "Boikivske, former(ly) Telmanove" or are quoting DPR officials, which makes them not count here. When it comes to international organiations, they seem to noticeably prefer Boikivske/Boykivske. These are the closest thing to indicators of "official" names we will get - especially given the fact that the town doesn't really show up in English-language sources at all outside of the context of international orgs covering the war.

When it comes to news sources,[4][5] it's roughly 50/50, with too little data to really determine anything. Same goes for books.[6][7] There seems to be no clear WP:COMMONNAME in English here. We should, in that case, stick to Boikivske, the name used by the legitimate Ukrainian government of the town, per WP:UAPLACE. Also, the most reputable sources we have are ones that use language indicating Boikivske is the more "official" or legitimate name. There are, meanwhile, zero English-language sources that treat "Telmanove" as an official name past 2016.

As far as I can tell, there are essentially zero sources that ever mention either "Boikivske Raion" or "Telmanove Raion" (including permutations with "district", etc) in English past 2016, indicating even less of an extant COMMONNAME for that administrative unit. Thus per WP:CONSISTENCY, if we move Telmanove, we should also move the associated raion page. HappyWith (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Polyamorph (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I object applying UAPLACE to localities which have never bee held by Ukraine after they have been renamed. You can only rename something you control, otherwise the rename is just on paper and does not affect the locality in any way. Ymblanter (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sources recommended by WP:WIAN use Boikivske or variation: the US GNS[8] gives the name Boikivske (variant names Ostgeym, Telʹmanove, Telʹmanovo); Google Maps uses Boikivske;[9] Apple Maps uses Boykivske.[10]
So it doesn’t matter whether UAPLACE is applied. But UAPLACE does have consensus, and clearly defines its scope as “places in Ukraine.” Ukraine’s decommunization laws renamed Russian-occupied places from 2015, and in these eight years no one has even proposed changing its scope, just insisted they don’t like it. Doesn’t fly with me.  —Michael Z. 00:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UAPLACE is an information page. Whereas I like it and I follow it renaming articles on Ukrainian localities, it has never undergone through any process which resulted in consensus. The only discussion I aware of after 2014 was at Talk:Myrnohrad and it shows anything but consensus that UAPLACE can be applied to this typo of localities. We just had a group RM which sure would have succeeded if UAPLACE had consensus, but instead it failed miserably. Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So we fall back to the guideline WP:PLACE, that includes WIAN. Or fall back to the policy WP:TITLE, that includes the CRITERIA, COMMONNAME, and NAMECHANGES. Or we just find a local consensus here and in each other related RM, with participants deciding on their own which conventions matter. C’est la Wikipedia.
I note that in several RMs you claimed consensus existed for using Russian-imposed names in occupied territories of Ukraine, but declined to ever point to any evidence to support your claim. It seems inconsistent to now choose to ignore an actual written convention that you yourself contributed to since 2015. Oh well.  —Michael Z. 16:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed to this consensus many times, but you pretended like you do not hear. At some point I decided that it does not make sense to continue anymore. Sorry I have better things to do than arguing the same stuff endlessly. Ymblanter (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I honestly do not understand what consensus you are talking about. I don't see anyone on that talk page arguing for a policy of not moving occupied settlements, which is what it seems like you're saying there is. I see one user mentioning Crimean settlements - which this RM does not involve - but I don't see really any discussion there about occupied settlements as a whole. Can you please quote or summarize the specific passage you're referring to when you say "this consensus"? HappyWith (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the result of that RM only the articles about settlements which were under Ukrainian control were moved - and all participants of the discussion were ok with that. They were certainly aware of the fact that some of the settlements were occupied and no one insisted that these had to be moved. All the participants were clearly pro-Ukrainian, most of them long-term Wikipedia users, no Russian trolls, whatever, and there were more of them than any RM on individual settlements would attract. This situation lasted for several years, until mid-2022. If this is not consensus, I probably do not have any understanding of what Wikipedia consensus is. Ymblanter (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not consensus, that's a lack of action. No one in that discussion was saying "...And that's why we're only moving these, because we should never move the others." The only thing people said about occupied settlements was that they might be more controversial - there were no policy arguments made against moving them.
Also, even if that was consensus against moving occupied settlements, which it wasn't, it's pretty clear consensus has changed when you look at recent discussions where there was consensus to move occupied settlements. HappyWith (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I said that, and nobody objected. Recent discussions to move occupied settlements typically attracted a few individuals with very strong opinions. In fact, in the first one I noticed the nomination was "We should move X to restore justice". Do you think any of the voters said that this was not a policy argument? In these cases, closers usually just count votes, as they likely will do here as well. Ymblanter (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you sincerely think closers haven’t taken arguments into account and the determination is unfair, then I support your asking them to reconsider their decisions per WP:RMNOMIN, or write a more detailed closing statement per WP:THREEOUTCOMES, or initiate WP:MR if warranted. There should be no doubt. I’d add my name to such a request.  —Michael Z. 22:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources all have weaknesses. USG naming also does stuff like "Arabian Gulf" and "Burma", and the very idea that Google and Apple Maps are RS for contested place names in conflict zones subject to highly politicized name changes is a bit eyebrow-raising. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The GNIS gives approved (local official) names Myanma Naingngandaw and Pyidaungzu Thammada Myanma Naingngandaw, conventional names Burma and Union of Burma, plus ten variant names. (See Names of Myanmar for this complex subject).
It gives Persian Gulf as the conventional name and Arabian Gulf as one of fourteen variant names.
What’s the problem relevant to this discussion? If there are specific problems with these few reliable sources, then I suggest you edit WIAN to make it clear or remove them from the list.
You aren’t offering any sources at all, or any cogent argument based on our policies at all. If we were to disregard these sources, then the conventions dictate that we fall back to UAPLACE, or official names. In every case, the result is the same.
Ah, you wrote something about “DPR authorities” – is that a specific, strong, reliable source you can link to?  —Michael Z. 20:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding discounting quotations from DPR authorities, you would also have to remove quotations from the internationally recognized authorities, and it would then become a slippery slope as according to Ymblanter (I would be much obliged to him if he could link a source to that assertion) the Ukrainian government legally compels the usage of decommunized names.
Virtually all English-language references to decommunized names on the 2014–22 de facto territory of the separatist republics are in the context of the ongoing conflict, in which Western media obviously are going to find it expedient to use the name decreed by the Verkhovna Rada in Kyiv rather than the name used almost universally by locals. If this was happening in a non-white developing country, it would be considered in bad taste as the journalists would open themselves up to charges of colonialist bias and whatnot.
Wikipedia is a supranational entity not beholden to the legislation of any one government regarding ideologically motivated name changes. Personal sympathies notwithstanding, if everyone living in a place calls it something, that's a pretty strong argument. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a lot of pure speculation, OR, and extremely offensive. For starters, it’s the invading Russian military that rapes people in front of their relatives for expressing the wrong national identity. Arguing that Wikipedia should respect the victims’ “freedom” supposed freedom and reject “colonialist bias and whatnot” by using Moscow’s violently imposed names instead of following our policies might come across to some observers as a sick and twisted argument.  —Michael Z. 21:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone can choose to be extremely offended by something. I might find a refusal to take into account historical context, or even the lack of some acknowledgment that there is one, extremely offensive. I know people who would be mildly offended (on a personal level, unlike my own slight academic annoyance) by the use of "Odesa" in historical contexts, which is absolutely an appropriation.
  • As you well know, OR is welcome on talk pages. And it could be found worrisome by some editors that a sysop seems to fairly frequently display an apparent lack of comprehension of WP praxis.
  • Your second sentence kinda speaks for itself.
  • The term "violently imposed names" is a gross oversimplification, not to mention a sophisticated misdirection from the facts. The name "Odessa", while imposed by St. Petersburg over a Turkish or Tatar name, absolutely predates Ukrainian "Odesa", and until quite recently, Odessa was more or less a Russian city, BY WHICH I MEAN руське місто AND OBVIOUSLY NOT російське місто (a vital distinction which I haven't yet seen you show any acknowledgment or comprehension of). (While we're at it, the communist names were imposed decades ago by the Soviets, who comprised both Russians and Ukrainians.)
  • At no point did I use the word "freedom" in the above comment. I appreciate not having words stuffed into my mouth.
  • The comparison to a hypothetical was purely to illustrate the complexity of potentially using politically motivated newspapers as a source of COMMONNAME. It was definitely not meant as a characterization of the present situation. The only word I would safely use is "appropriation", and then in re your handling of the military district rather than anything else.
  • As to who is the one following policies, I think an examination of said policies and the extraordinarily large volume of relevant current and past matters will show that pretty clearly.
  • The use of the term "sick and twisted argument" for something you disagree with also speaks for itself.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I shouldn’t have written “freedom” in scare quotes that could be taken for a literal quotation – I referred to whatever it was you meant by citing the “the name used almost universally by locals”: your completely unsupported assertion, and a stereotypical imperialist appeal to the supposed choice of the colonized subaltern, all the more during their being subject to the crime of aggression, war crimes, crimes against humanity, incitement to genocide, and credible evidence of actual genocide.  —Michael Z. 22:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should have mentioned this explicitly in the nom, but if you go to the Google Search links, you would see that both names have extremely few numbers of human-written results, which is a major contributing evidence to my argument that there is no common name. If we did as you're suggesting and removed all the sources from Ukrainian government or Ukraine-affiliated sources, that would bring down the number of sources on both even closer to zero. I don’t think these arguments really change the overall point I was making in the nom.
I agree with Michael that the part about "colonialist bias" really makes zero sense. HappyWith (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't think the assertion about it being illegal to call the settlements by their old name is true. I looked up news articles about the law, and didn't find anything like that. I've even seen Ukrainian officials offhandedly use the old name of this very settlement on occasion. HappyWith (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree with the idea that we should remove the Ukrainian government-affiliated sources from the list because we're removing the DPR sources - Ukraine is a real country, whereas the DPR was a random puppet entity that made a couple of statements on now-defunct websites with .su domains. The US State Department (source), OSCE, and the Ukrainian government all consistently call the town Boikviske. Zero modern institutions have been demonstrated to consistently call it Telmanove. If there's a widely accepted name here, it is Boikivske. HappyWith (talk) 07:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See my above comments and per Ymblanter. I also want to point out (to those who weren't pinged) that I created a pre-RFC centralizing discussion thread on the talk page of WP:UAPLACE, as all three principals have either explicitly (HappyWith and Michael) or implicitly (Ymblanter) affirmed that they want one. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Ukraine has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support no apparent common name, so the de jure name should be used. It doesn't matter what Western media are "obviously" going to do nor what would happen if we were talking about another case. What matters is that some sources use the Ukrainian government name and what Wikipedia does is follow the sources, even if it would go against what the locals do. Which by the way has not been proved to be the case here, according to the 2001 census this settlement was 57.46% Ukrainian-speaking and 41.97% Russian-speaking, the latter category also including Russian-speaking ethnic Ukrainians; it is logical to think that ethnic Ukrainians, the majority here, would sympathise more with their government's official name for their town. Though this all is really WP:OR and I don't think should be taken into account as we to be honest don't really have a way of verifying what the most common local name is (not that this is required by Wikipedia policy anyway). And by local I include things like what are the inhabitants calling the place at their homes in private, not just what the hand-picked local authorities say.
I also completely disagree with RadioactiveBoulevardier's suggestion that would imply Ukrainian and "DPR" sources should be treated with the same weight. The Donetsk People's Republic was an illegal puppet state and a proxy of a country of which we have virtually all of their state media outlets banned; in other words, their official word does not matter. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. The only people the DPR represented was one man sitting at the Kremlin. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-history information

[edit]

I've had a bit of trouble finding sources for non-historical info about this place - eg: the economy, ethnic and language stats, transport, etc. If anyone can find this info, it would be super useful. HappyWith (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boikivske&oldid=1225491100"