Jump to content

Talk:Folkstsaytung (Kyiv)

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

Requested move 28 September 2020

[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: Moved clear consensus favoring this proposal and all oppose arguments are effectively countered. Recognizability is settled because main article is at Kyiv. Historical context is moot because the city’s name in this case is just a disambiguator, not part of the name of the topic. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 00:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Folkstsaytung (Kiev) → Folkstsaytung (Kyiv) – In this title, "(Kiev)" isn't part of the name of the publication, it is a disambiguator to distinguish the Folkstsaytung published in Kyiv, Ukraine from the Folkstsaytung published in Warsaw, Poland. Since the Kiev->Kyiv RM, we now refer to the city as "Kyiv" not "Kiev", and thus the disambiguator should be "Kyiv", not "Kiev". Alternative proposal: Folkstsaytung (Ukraine). Lev!vich 16:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - I'd propose we keep the discussion centralized at Talk:Kyiv. Clear, at this stage, there is a wide rejection of applying the spelling 'Kyiv' retroactively. The city was known as 'Kiev' in English at the time (and, generally speaking, this is still the most common name). 'Kyiv' is useless as disambiguator, since this is not a name known by English speakers. --Soman (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support  Parenthetic disambiguation is to help our readers find their article. It is not content in a “historical article,” but it is functional copy, like a paper encyclopedia’s index at the back and the running heads at the top corner of each page. It will appear in various category and article listings (in this case, Mass media in Kyiv which is currently considered for renaming to Kyiv was recently renamed, Publications disestablished in 1919, Publications established in 1917, Yiddish socialist newspapers, and Bundism). The disambiguation keyword should be the most widely recognized and simplest one that identifies this particular Folkstsaytung from any other. Not the “historical” domain-specific “Kiev,” but the broadest disambiguating context, and the name of our main article Kyiv. Relevant guidelines are wp:Article titles#Disambiguation (“use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any”), and wp:DAB#Naming the specific topic articles (“use only as much additional detail as necessary”).  ¶ Also consider this as a precedent or pattern: in the future do we want to haggle over the use of Kiev and Kyiv as two separate disambiguation words, when 1) the usage is changing, and 2) they will risk conflicting and overlapping with each other, and 3) all or most of the hierarchy in Category:Kyiv is about to be is now being renamed?  ¶ Regarding using Ukraine instead, do we know this was the only Folkstsaytung ever published in Ukraine? —Michael Z. 20:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per op. blindlynx (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As is stated above, the purpose of the disambiguator is to help readers find the article they're looking for. And since "Kiev" is the more recognizable English spelling of the city to most English speakers/readers, that's what should be used. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument is that the decision to change the spelling of the main article title was based on usage in reliable sources. The disambiguator isn't about usage in reliable sources, it's about what spelling is most recognizable to the average reader of the English Wikipedia. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having disambiguator be different from the name of the city that is used in the main article based, as you said, on reliable sources, defeats the purpose and goes against consistency of this very encyclopedia--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a retroactive change, as the article's name merely denotes the geographic location, not the time period it was published in, so instead a consistency must be kept, as it is in other articles on this site.--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Istanbul is not a variant spelling of Constantinople, it is a different name. Why do you propose treating Kyiv differently from Beijing after its 1979 name change? Look at the article titles in Category:History of Beijing as an example. There is no “apply retroactively” apart from a handful of independently established proper names. —Michael Z. 18:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'Beijing' was adopted earlier for domestic use, but promoted internationally from 1979. Using 'Beijing' earlier than 1979, and especially earlier than 1958 is dubious. I use 'Peking' when working on articles on that period, such as in 1964 split in the Communist Party of India. But Peking/Beijing is not exactly analogous to Kiev/Kyiv, the Beijing case is a debate on different methods of Romanization, whilst the political rationale for the Kiev/Kyiv shift is that the former is perceived as originating from Russian and the latter from Ukrainian. --Soman (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Peking and Beijing are from romanization systems based on Cantonese and two different Mandarin spoken dialects. Both are native to China but Mandarin is the official dialect. Indeed, Kyiv is based on Ukrainian, a language that had status in Ukraine since 1917, was spoken by tens of millions but officially subordinated until Perestroika and Hlasnist in about 1989. WP:BIAS has something to do with why many people still call the USSR “Russia,” can’t find Ukraine or Kyiv on a map, and are so attached to the colonial spelling Kiev, as opposed to the general acceptance of Beijing in Wikipedia. Why did you have to go all the way to India? Don’t they use Peking in articles about China? —Michael Z. 20:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, Peking is from Chinese postal romanization which is based on the phonetics of the Nanjing dialect of Mandarin, instead of Beijing pronunciation. —Michael Z. 18:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you consider opposing WP:BIAS as a political purpose. blindlynx (talk) 08:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
“Drive” by whom? The anti-Kyiv editors? Are you “admitting” you don’t care about wp:systemic bias? Are you “admitting” you don’t want the spelling Kyiv to be accepted the same way as Beijing for some reason?  ¶ Your victorious “gotcha” does not help us work on Wikipedia. —Michael Z. 23:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You never heard of KyivNotKiev? I'd say that the campaign to replace 'Kiev' with 'Kyiv' in English is, well, a campaign. As to the arguments of bias and colonialism - no, equating Russian-Ukrainian relations and say British-Indian relations doesn't work. Kiev was very much a city of the Russian empire, Folkstsaytung was at the on-set the publication of the South Russian Bureau of the Bund. As pointed out in the Talk:Kyiv discussion non-Ukrainian parties dominated the 1917 vote in the city. In fact it appears that no other major city had such a strong showing of the Russian monarchist right-wing as Kiev did. --Soman (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Governments run all kinds of PR campaigns, and I admit no responsibility for any of them. —Michael Z. 23:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This Kiev/Kyiv in the name of the article is a geographic denominator, and since the city itself is called Kyiv on this site, so should this article for consistency. Yiddish language argument is irrelevant as the city's name was not part of the publication's name.--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 08:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be 'Kiekhkh'. blindlynx (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is a 1917-19 newspaper, published in Kiev. It is no longer extant. You're just trying to side-step and re-argue the historical use of Kiev/Kyiv that's already being discussed at Talk:Kyiv. You're adding nothing new to the discussion here. Walrasiad (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the city of Kyiv was never renamed, and both Kyiv and History of Kyiv use "Kyiv" when describing early 20th century period of city's history. Using any other name is inconsistent, and this article is as of now one of the few using the old spelling in disambiguation.--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy. So you are just intent on re-arguing something here that didn't fly at Talk:Kyiv? I am not interested in revisiting that here. Either take it to Talk:Kyiv again, or come up with something more concrete. Walrasiad (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are going to convince everyone to change all other articles that have (Kyiv) as geographic disambiguator, I don't see why this is an argument at all. And don't act all smug and unprofessional, this is counterintuitive on this website.--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - None of this discussion about Folkstsaytung being a historical newspaper is relevant, because "(Kiev)" is not part of the title of the newspaper. It's a disambiguator. We don't use disambiguators that match the time period of the article they are disambiguating. For example, it's El Tiempo (Istanbul) and Guozijian (Beijing), not El Tiempo (Constantinople) and Guozijian (Peking) (Kuo-tzu-chien (Peking) is a redirect). We have three titles that use (Peking), all redirects [1]. 24 titles that use (Constantinople), all of them redirects except two, which are articles about parts of the ancient city of Constantinople [2]. We have 34 titles using (Kyiv) already [3]. OK, big finish: 49 titles using (Kiev), and they are all redirects except for this one [4]. That's why we shouldn't use "(Kiev)" for a disambiguator, instead we should use "(Kyiv)", per WP:CONDAB and WP:CONSISTENT. Lev!vich 18:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the creator of El Tiempo (Istanbul), I'd point out that the history of that publication stretches from both Ottoman and Turkish Republic periods, and that the opening passage of the article says it was published in "Constantinople/Istanbul". --Soman (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • And a reader looking for more about the city might follow the first link, whereat the first words are “This article is about the historical city from 330 to 1453.” I sincerely suggest that “Istanbul (Constantinople)” would be better there. —Michael Z. 20:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • El Tiempo's existence stretches past 1923, when the English name was changed to Istanbul. This one doesn't go past 1919. Not even close to comparable. Walrasiad (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • 1930, not 1923. El Tiempo ceased publication in 1930. Names of Istanbul: Names other than استانبول (İstanbul) had become obsolete in the Turkish language after the establishment of the Republic of Turkey [29 October 1923]. However, at that point Constantinople was still used when writing the city's name in Latin script. In 1928, the Turkish alphabet was changed from the Arabic to the Latin script. Beginning in 1930, Turkey officially requested that other countries use Turkish names for Turkish cities, instead of other transliterations to Latin script that had been used in the Ottoman times. Lev!vich 23:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Still within the time frame. By contrast, 1919 is nowhere near 1995. But if that really bugs you, we can do an RM to move "El Tiempo (Constantinople)", and see how that goes. Walrasiad (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • "El Tiempo (Constantinople)" would violate WP:CONDAB just like "Folkstsaytung (Kiev)". Lev!vich 23:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • I disagree. It's sufficiently within the timeframe to allow Istanbul, but we can put it for RM, if you'd like. Publications and bibiographies distinguish by place of imprint at time of publication, e.g. we refer to the Soviet magazine Zvedza as published in Leningrad, not St. Petersburg. Kant's works were published in Konigsburg, not Kaliningrad. If a publication overlaps in time frame, then we can take the more modern version. But there is no overlap here. Folkstsaytung was published in Kiev in 1917-1919, and that's how all the secondary sources refer to it. Not only is it historical usage, its RS usage. I don't see a reason to make the article title less recognizable to readers who might be looking for it. Walrasiad (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • This is about a parenthetical disambiguator. We don't use "(Leningrad)" or "(Konigsburg)" as a parenthetical disambiguator for any article (just one redirect for Leningrad). Lev!vich 01:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                    • By happenstance. We don't use many parenthetical disambiguators period - especially not locations (WP:NCDAB urges us to avoid proper nouns in parenthesis). So there are not many examples to draw from. It seems in this case a proper noun might not be avoidable (BTW, this article is missing a hatnote to the other Folkstsaytung article). But the guidance should still be recognizability and usefulness to readers. Adding "(Kiev)" helps general readers who come to it via Yiddish or early 20th Century literature, since that is how their RS's will refer to it, and that's how they will recognize it. And readers of Wikipedia are more important than the peculiar preferences of editors. Walrasiad (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dozens of articles use "(Kyiv)" as a parenthetical disambiguator [5], so it's not that rare. Only this one uses "(Kiev)". Lev!vich 02:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ugh. There's a lot of bad article titling there. Anyway, not "dozens", but about twenty, several of which should be changed to "X, Kyiv" or parenthesis omitted entirely since they are already unique. Anyway, there's a reason we're using "(Kiev)" rather than "(newspaper founded 1917)" or "(Rafes's newspaper)" as disambiguator - no, it is not to satisfy the vanity of Ukrainian nationalists, it is because that's what makes it easier for readers to recognize and find. And that takes priority. "(Kyiv)" does not achieve that, since RS's do not use that in reference to this newspaper. It was published in Kiev in 1917-1919, and that is how it is referenced and referred to. Walrasiad (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is necessarily for people who refer to Wikipedia, and not necessarily for people who have read the reliable sources about this newspaper. —Michael Z. 02:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please let's skip the "vanity of Ukranian nationalists" stuff, it brings down the quality of the discussion. I'm not sure if there are any Ukranian nationals here, but I'm sure no one participating in this RM is a Ukranian nationalist. Lev!vich 02:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I'd be surprised if there wasn't. But that's not my point. My point is the disambiguator serves a functional purpose, not an ornamental purpose. No Ukranian newspapers are emblazoned with city of publication in their article title. Only this one, purely to distinguish it from its Warsaw counterpart. For the disambiguator to work and be useful, it must be recognizable, that is, as it is commonly used in reference to this newspaper. And this newspaper is referred everywhere as published in Kiev between 1917 and 1919. Walrasiad (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why do these acusations always show up in these discussions? As if any knowledge of Ukraine makes someone a raving Banderite. blindlynx (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • And this newspaper is referred everywhere as published in Kiev between 1917 and 1919? Henry Abramson's book published by Harvard (originally in 1999, revised ed. 2018) [6], talking about the Bolshevik invasion of Kyiv in 1918:

            It was also manifestly evident, however, that individual Jews were prominent among the Soviet leadership in Ukraine, particularly in the cities. In Kyiv, the Commissars for Finance, Press, Army, and even the City Commissar serve as examples. On the other hand, the Jewish political parties were unanimous in their condemnation of the Bolshevik regime. Rafes, leader of the left-wing Bund, wrote in its organ Folkstsaytung: "a foreign power has entered Kyiv ..."

            Abramson spells it "Kyiv" even when he is quoting Folkstsaytung. As for our readers today, when they want to distinguish between the capital of Poland and the capital of Ukraine, they are going to think "Warsaw" and "Kyiv", not "Kiev". This is why we moved the title to Kyiv: because it's the common spelling today. We never use the historical spelling of a city for a parenthetical disambiguation... and (at least some) scholars spell it "Kyiv" today, even when talking about the past. Lev!vich 04:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as "(Kiev)" is a geographic disambiguator, not a historical one, and the city was never renamed anyway, the new spelling was merely adapted by this site, and so it should be changed to "(Kyiv)" for consistency and clarity of this encyclopedia--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency sake. Referring to the city as Kiev in some instances and Kyiv in others would be even more confusing, especially to people who don't know much about European history.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 22:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No more than Constantinople/Istanbul, Bombay/Mumbai, Calcutta/Kolkata, Cohin/Kochi, etc. The consensus emerging on Talk:Kyiv is to follow the example and reserve "Kiev" for pre-1995 and "Kyiv" for post-1995 usage. Meaning, the newspaper in this article is published in Kiev, and the text will refer to it as "Kiev". Having a disambiguator different from the text is what would be confusing. Walrasiad (talk) 11:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, less than them. See what’s missing from List of city name changes. I guess having this article in Category:Mass media in Kyiv is confusing too. It would be a bit less confusing just to use the modern spelling everywhere, like reliable sources being published now do. If you and your colleagues stop trying to resist the consensus main article move, then this problem you brought about, while complaining about it, will disappear. —Michael Z. 13:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The least confusing would be to stick with the WP:COMMONNAME, which is 'Kiev'. The point here is either use insist on the need to use 'Kyiv' as it is officially promoted by Ukrainian government authorities or you stick with WP:COMMONNAME. If your core concern is the present-day officialdom, you opt for Kyiv but that officaldom cannot be applied retroactively to earlier historical periods. If your core concern is to avoid confusion for Wikipedia users, go with Kiev as the WP:COMMONNAME consistently, which is the name most commonly used in both historical and contemporary contexts. You can't have it both ways. --Soman (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop invoking the “Ukrainian government” straw man to motivate the haters. The article move had nothing to do with that. Style guides, geo-names databases, and other sources are ultimately based on every state’s own geodesic survey. The fact is that it took the Anglosphere three decades to start treating Ukraine’s place names like the rest of the world’s, and expressing petty bitterness over that, has nothing to do with our guidelines or with the consensus at talk:Kyiv and the exemplary decision written up there.
My core concern is implementing Wikipedia’s consensus and following reliable sources.
The only non-confusing choice is to use one name, and always state the other in an article lead, as the guidelines recommend. The one name we have chosen for the main article, which we have put under a 12-month RM moratorium. The anti-Kyivans are imposing a confusing situation and only debating where the confusion is to affect this encyclopedia. The choice they’re fighting for as defining “historical,” 1991-95, falls right in the middle of the most important period in the history of Ukraine as a state, and also during the lifetime of many Wikipedians and almost all living persons that we write about in Kyiv and Ukraine categories. It is the very worst possible choice. It couldn’t be any worse if you decided to intentionally disrupt Wikipedia by resisting the article move.
You seem to want it both ways, and that is some nerve you have, complaining about confusion. —Michael Z. 15:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not complaining about confusion. I just insist that there should be some consistency in choosing the rationale on why we use one name or the other. One rationale, usually used in Wikipedia naming is WP:COMMONNAME, i.e. we simply use the predominant name in English. Another rationale, also employed in Wikipedia naming is official names, i.e. to go by a legally defined name. In this case the common name in English (‘Kiev’) and the official name promoted by Ukrainian (local and national) government authorities (‘Kyiv’) doesn’t match, and there has been a debate on Wikipedia for over a decade on which one to use. Notably there are political connotations to the choice of name, as ‘Kiev’ is construed as Russophile and Kyiv is construed as Ukrainophile, which makes the discussion infected. This dilemma is not unique for Kiev/Kyiv, parallels exist for Jerusalem/Alquds, Kosovo/Kosova, etc..
Two sets of issues arise from this. First, the problem is that depending on the choice of rationale for naming the article of the city. If the choice is to go by the official name, then that naming cannot be applied retroactively to epochs when this naming wasn’t used. Saying, in English, that Folkstsaytung was published in Kyiv is ahistorical because it implies a false notion that the 1995/2018 reform had occurred decades earlier. Whilst it may seem as harmless harmonization of the naming across articles, it would essentially constitute historical revisionism.
Secondly, at Wikipedia is that we don't use article naming for normative purposes, i.e. we don't name articles based on what people should call it, we name articles based on how places are actually called. 'Correct name' (lacking a better word) is not an acceptable third choice between ‘common name’ and ‘official name’, it is not possible to argue that the Wikipedia article Kosovo should be moved to Kosova because the land belongs to the Albanian nation by divine right. Etc, etc. --Soman (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not even bother to read the closing statement for the page move toKyiv? Another rationale, also employed in Wikipedia naming is official names, i.e. to go by a legally defined name.—nope. No it is not, and the statement didn’t even mention it. To sum up, there are two common names, and other guidelines support Kyiv, and a majority of participants supported that view. This “historical article” stuff is a bull-crap rationale to resist the move, because although there may be an argument to use the name in some circumstances, its proponents are barely bothering. They aren’t providing evidence of their assertions and aren’t even citing the relevant guidelines, just taking advantage of their bare majority on talk:Kyiv to push their view, while they ignore the actual substance of the decision. Thanks for giving us another case in point. —Michael Z. 00:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This publication is from 1917-19, not 1991-95. Walrasiad (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the Kyiv Zoo is from 1909, as is the St. Nicholas Roman Catholic Cathedral, Kyiv, and the Kyiv Conservatory is from 1913. The reader can learn these facts after finding these articles, through search, categories, title, disambiguation, or whatever. This is free encyclopedia is from 2020. Specifically, from after September 16, when we decided the normal name of the city is Kyiv. This text we’re discussing is not a historical-content context, but an encyclopedic indexing context. It’s like at the back of a modern history book, where the index says “Kiev, see Kyiv,” for those who haven’t heard of it. —Michael Z. 17:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I was going to cite an actual example for you, but the first three books I pulled off the shelf, just index Kyiv, and don’t even cross-reference Kiev at all. They are Yekelchyk 2007, Ukraine: Birth of a Modern Nation, Applebaum 2007, Red Famine, and Plokhy 2017, The Gates of Europe. —Michael Z. 18:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Zoo, Cathedral and Conservatory are currently extant. This publication is not, and has not existed for over a century. Their publication imprint is Kiev, which is how it is reported in most secondary sources. Much like other defunct newspapers like the The Bombay Chronicle or The Madras Times or, using a more exact parallel, The Mail (Madras) is not reported as The Mail (Chennai), despite existing down to 1981. Walrasiad (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
English-language papers, the latter known to millions of English-speakers who are still alive today, and published where English was an official language and those were the official place names in English. They literally had the English names Bombay Chronicle and Madras on their respective front pages. Today you can buy a copy of Madras Musings at a newsstand. They don’t need their name translated. None of these were published in Yiddish among Ukrainian and Russian speakers a century ago. This one does not have Kiev in its name, but it might have said קיעוו somewhere on the front page, and our translation of that is “Kyiv.” They are not an exact parallel at all. —Michael Z. 03:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Mail does not have "Madras" in the title, it was published in Madras, well before the English name changed to Chennai. Thus our article is called "The Mail (Madras)". Much like the Folkstsaytung was published in Kiev, even much longer before the English name changed to Kyiv. Thus our article should continue to be "Folkstsaytung (Kiev)". That said, this is a pretty straightforward application of the RfC at Talk:Kyiv. This newspaper ceased publication a century ago. Walrasiad (talk) 08:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That RFC doesn’t have consensus. That RFC is about article content, not disambiguation in titles.
Please indent your comments after replies, instead of outdenting. This thread is becoming impossible to follow. —Michael Z. 12:39, 9 October 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Folkstsaytung_(Kyiv)&oldid=1205369148"