Talk:Kharkiv

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ukrainian_subdivisions. Irpen 20:23, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe I'll regret this later, or maybe no one will notice this at all, but should I start a debate on where this article should be? I would prefer Kharkiv, the Ukrainian name, although I've visited the city and fully realise that most inhabitants primarily speak Russian. I don't know if there is a consensus on Ukrainian place-names, but if there isn't, I would suggest using the Ukrainian names except for places in the Crimea. There is an article at Kharkiv region, so at present it's all a bit inconsistent. Maybe I'll come back later and decide to move this page, unless I find reasonable objections. --Iceager 12:59, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It would seem logical to have redirects for such nomenclature issues. 129.2.211.72 18:29, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia's guideline: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use_English). There was a huge debate about this specific issue at talk:Kyiv and Wikipedia:Naming policy poll, although I can't find the exact conclusion at the moment. The gist of it was: widely-used names should use the most commonly-used English-language name for the article's heading, with other names mentioned in the intro and from redirects.
Names that are not well-known to English speakers should be transliterated from the native language for the article's heading. Wikipedia seems to have settled for the Ukrainian National transliteration system (see Romanization of Ukrainian), which is used by the UN and English-speaking foreign services, and starting to be adopted by English-language atlases and some news services.
I don't think anyone's defined "widely-used". What fraction of English-speakers have heard of "Kharkov", or make it part of their active vocabulary? Although I hate interpreting Google results this way, for reference, googling English-language pages gives this many results (ratio 3.2:1):
   Kharkov   233,000
   Kharkiv    71,900
Personally, I agree that Wikipedia should use the authoritative names for headings (I mean as used by professionals and academics, not because they're chosen by a government), and allow people to find them using redirects. My favourite example does this, Brontosaurus. But current consensus dictates the most commonly-used name be used.
—Michael Z. 22:07, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)
Update: today the search of English-language pages gives a ratio of 3.0:1:
   Kharkov   507,000
   Kharkiv   170,000
Being wiser now, I tried a search limited to English-language pages updated in the past year (selecting to three or six months gives a similar ratio): 2.4:1
   Kharkov   353,000
   Kharkiv   145,000
I've noticed that most atlases now use Kharkiv, but I don't have a survey of which ones.
I've also had a closer look at the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), and I don't think they're being interpreted correctly. Kharkov is not an English name, it's a transliteration from Russian. The naming convention says we should use the transliterated local name, which, at least since 1991, is Kharkiv. —Michael Z. 2005-03-7 18:49 Z

Contents

[edit] Requested move

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support This name corresponds to the standard transliteration used for geographic names in Ukraine, and is the most likely version to be used in the English media. The Russian transliteration Kharkov can continue to be used in WWII-related articles. —Michael Z. 2005-04-6 20:56 Z
  • Oppose. Kharkov is pretty well established in English. -R. S. Shaw 03:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Incorrect. Have it been more established, I would have never proposed the move. Kiev and Odessa are established. Kharkov was established but not anymore. LexisNexis search of the news in 50 major English language papers in the last 24 months gives KharkOv 78 hits and KharkIv 110 hits. Britannica and Oxford dictionary also use KharkIv for the article name. Irpen
Several atlases do too. I'll see if I can get to a library in a couple of days and do a survey. —Michael Z. 2005-04-7 20:13 Z
  • Support for the reasons above. Kharkiv should be the title of the article. KharkOv may still be used in other articles, depending on the context. Irpen 17:46, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Kharkov is still the commonly recognised name, to my mind. -- Necrothesp 10:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Agree with Irpen and particularly "Michael Z"'s WWII comment. Both names should be mentioned on first line as with Beijing Philip Baird Shearer 09:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • They're already there. —Michael Z. 2005-04-9 15:05 Z

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 12:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments after vote closed

  • Oppose Basically most of us Kuban Cossacks are descendent from Zaprozhiya and Slabodyanschina, almost all of our records and in even in our Balachka dialect we pronounve the city as Khar'kav. There were certainly some valid points that almost all of the city's population speaks Russian and even in the Surzhik dialect of the provinces still refer to it as Kharkov. Also we must remember that most of the infrastructure that was built there was in the times of the Russian Empire/USSR. Which is why referring historically (excluding WWII) to the city as Kharkiv is also incorrect. It is like calling the Byzantine capital Istambul. This would certainly include the places in the city itself, for instance church buildings (especially since the schismatics have hardly any property there). Kuban kazak 13:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page Move

It has been emerged that in the city the local government just equivalated Russian as a status of refional [1], [2]. Googling the two results:

5,220,000 Kharkov
1,470,000 Kharkiv

With the ratio of 5:1. Which the same for Kiev-Kyiv. The city is exclusively Russophone (as is the Oblast, unlike in Kiev), and most of the billboards, unlike Kiev, exhibit an overwheliming Russian language. The Metro still has quite a lot of Russian writings everywhere and voice announcemets are bilingual. That is enough of a case for its move. I am putting up a request for it. --Kuban Cossack 03:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should change anything. The legitimacy of this decision is still questionable. However, most importantly, the naming issue was decided based on the prevailing English language usage. I specifically conducted the search for prevailing names for all Oblast centers in Ukraine in major English Language media and other encyclopedias. All except of Kiev and Odessa are called through the transliteration of Ukrainian names. For details see this and this. Prevailing modern English language usage is the primary factor to determine the article name. At least that's how it was decided earlier to implement the vaguely formulated (perhaps on purpose) official guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Google seach picks both the historic and the modern usage. The latter is most important for the reader and is easiest to determine via the major media usage as well as other encyclopedias. --Irpen 03:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


Too late, I've posted a move request already. In any case I propose to revert the page move for a much more common name, which is now an officially bilingual city. Besides that is how Vitebsk and Mogilev got moved to the Russian spellings.--Kuban Cossack 03:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Request Cancelled as requested

I suggest you withdraw your proposals from WP:RM and portals. Such things should not be blasted without preliminary discussion and as of now, the move will not likely fly anyway. This will bring nothing but bad blood. Have some patience to discuss things. If I didn't convince you, let's continue here. No need to bring crowds of users from WP:RM with no clue on the issue unless we cannot agree here and one side chooses to force a vote. Trust me, I am talking reason here. --Irpen 03:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Still though:
  1. have a look at some mundane photos of the city here [3] Count the ratio of Russian sighns vs Urkainian. 50:50 roughly.
  2. Have a look at city portals supported by Kharkovites [4] Right on the top it says: Please be informed that the Russian site is very extensive and links to certain databases like train schedules and some other resources that are not available in English. Menu choices which are available only in Russian have the flag The translation is on-going and more information will be available in English Not even a mention of the Ukrainian version
  3. Official web server: http://www.univer.kharkov.ua/

--Kuban Cossack 03:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

These are all good points to be used in articles, inlcuding this one as well as UA L and others. But not for this article's title. For the latter, nothing matters more than prevailing English usage. For the very same reason, the WW2 articles use Battle of Kharkov, because of the usage in the English L WW2 books. This can peacefully coexist with the Kharkiv article similarly how to Chernihiv article coexists with the princes of Chernigov articles. Those princes frivolously moved, need to be moved back as per an ArbCom ruling.

But again, use the vote as the last resort. WP prevailing rule is to find the consensus. Vote is the necessary evil if we cannot cannot find it. You can even use Kharkov in the text of this very article when the context warrants (like for the times of the RU empire). But usage and titles are separate issues and should be treated separately. --Irpen 03:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, lets wait and see, for ~ a week how this law is taken up. If does turn out to be accepted by official society (and for a Russophone city, do you really expect anything else?) or will it be trashed away.

Oh just one last googling result:

Modern Kharkov 298,000
Modern Kharkiv 116,000

Hmm perhaps I can ivite some Kharkovites to express their view on the matter, (no vote rigging like you know who did) just some opinions. (Although I would expect the amount of blue-ribboned user pages to go up should they become permanent wikipedians.)--Kuban Cossack 03:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to invite Kyivlian to express their opinion on the name of their city. 05:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Guys, please stop it. Кияни, Киевляне, Харкiв'яни and Харьковчане have much very little direct influence on the English usage. Better ask Londoner's and New Yorkers about Kharkiv or Kharkov and they won't know. At best, they will know Kiev and Odessa, and the latter only due to several U.S. Odessas. So, once they don't know, we go check major papers in Lexis Nexis and Britannica. The answer is Kharkiv and Kiev and that's how the articles are called. Let's concentrate on improving the articles now and shelve the issue. --Irpen 08:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katyn massacre

The Kharkiv execution is mentioned in the Katyn massacre. Local people maintain http://www.memo.kharkov.ua/ site. They quote http://www.memo.kharkov.ua/amer.htm and http://artofwar.ru/b/bobrow_g_l/text_0170.shtml there. Xx236 13:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom Square, Kharkiv

I corrected what was said under the picture of Freedom Square: it is not the second largest square in the world, as it is also said here: Freedom Square, Kharkiv

I failed to find the info you are referring to and would love to get the actual reference to the source. Thnx, Yasya 06:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I've recently created List of city squares by size. Freedom Square, Kharkiv has been edited recently with respect to this issue. I suggest further discussion to go on Talk:Freedom Square, Kharkiv. To answer your question, the Naghsh-i Jahan Square is undoubtedly larger than the Freedom Square. --Romanski 14:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Quite convincing, thanks! A nice update to a Kharkov myth of the second largest. Yet, still the largest in Europe, though :))... Yasya 03:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/h/a/Talk%7EKharkiv_3202.html"