Talk:Kiev Governorate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ukraine Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
A fact from Kiev Governorate appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 30 April 2008.
Wikipedia

Contents

[edit] Southwestern Krai and other stuff

KG has not always been a part of SW Krai. Additionally, the SW Krai was related to the Kiev General-Governorship, not the Governotate. The latter indeed received territories Russia gained from Poland. The KG has nothing to do with that. Please do not inject stuff you "might have heard". This is too an important article for that. --Irpen 18:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More on injections

This edit was reverted as a whole because:

  • "Kiev Governorate was one of the three governorates of the Southwestern Krai", not lead stuff in this form. The Kiev General Governorate (or sw krai) whose part the Guberniya was, existed not for the whole time of this governorate's history. This info will be added where it belongs in non-spurious form.
  • "Its capital city was Kiev." duplicates "The city of Kiev was the capital of this Governorate.", a sentence just before that. Please read carefully the articles you edit.
  • "Majority of the population of the governorate was Ukrainian." anacrhonistic terminology for a long part of the KG's history. Anyway, belongs to demographic section when written.
  • "The Governorate was expanded with territories from the First Partition of Poland in 1781 and from the Third Partition in Poland in 1797." It did not.

I request more careful editing, careful reading, use of sources and avoidance of injections of stuff into an article per ILIKEIT. TIA, --Irpen 18:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of your edits, save for the last one: pl wiki has information sourced to this that Kiev Governorate was based significantly on the former Kiev Voivodeship, and notes dates 1781 and 1797 as times when it had former Polish territories attached. Why are you saying this is false? If you look at those maps: Image:Gubernie zachodnie krolestwo polskie 1902.jpg, Image:Rzeczpospolita Rozbiory 3.png and Image:KijowskieIRP.png, it becomes clear that not only was most if not the entire Kiev Governorate based on a part of the old Kiev Voivodeship, but the by 19th century the Kiev Governorate has been expanded to include some (greanted, not that much) territories of the pre-partition (but post-Andrusovo) Kiev Voivodeship.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Piotrus, KG's being significantly based on KV can be said the same way as its being based on Kiev Principlaity. Yes, areas overlapped. But directly preceding the Governorate was Kiev Regiment unit. We are not writing a history of the land. We are writing the history of the unit. In history of Kiev, both the Voivodship and the Guberniya are mentioned all right. --Irpen 22:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we don't need to include references to Kiev Voivodeship being the basis for the Kiev Regiment; those belong in that article (btw, you may want to disambiguate Polk). That's not my point, however: that is that in the late 18th century Kiev Governorate was expanded with some territories acquired from the partitions of Poland; this should be mentioned, as as any other territorial change of this entity. Nothing more, nothing less.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Just to be sure, there is no ambiguity. Indeed in 1790s the KG got some territories from former Poland, I will add that in a proper section. But your original version suggested that KG was related to KV while in fact it was not. I have no problem with facts and I will sure present them. --Irpen 23:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Certainly KG was related to KV, but the relation is not crucial to this article. I am having a bit difficulty in comapring maps and researching history of the border region, but it seems to me that the western powiats (ujazds?) of the governorate - such as Radomyshl and Lypovets - were based around towns that were in the Commonwealth until the last two partitions. Polish wiki has the list of 12 powiats, 11 of them are ilinked to the town that I can give you the name of in Polish/Ukrainian/English.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I listed "powiats" it gained in 1790s as you can see. I just want to do it properly in due time and in due section. I placed "inuse" on top. Since I am not pushing this article to the main page now, can you not conflict with my edits and let me finish? --Irpen 23:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would make an interesting DYK, but take your time. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
My goal in Wikipedia is not to earn stars but to produce as much of good content as I reasonably can. If the article is ready to some decent stage before the 5 day's expiration, I will submit it to DYK. I just don't want a rash text on the main page. Just have some patience pls. --Irpen 23:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

Current section of bi-ethnic demography is actually worse than none. The KG was stronly four-ethnical with Jewish population ever strong and the steady Russian immigration that by the 20th century created an ethnic Russian majority in Kiev. This stuff cannot be summarized in one section which can only create a cross-section for a specific time. This info should be added to the article's chronological flow. The 1897 census, whose data I will add, provided the most detailed info for specific time. I will remove the current one-sentence section and will try my best to integrate all the info properly. --Irpen 23:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

All right, but we should note that the 1897 census was biased (undercounted Poles, certainly, I don't know about Ukrainians?).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Ru census did not have an ethnicity question. It had a question on religious affiliation and another one on native language. The ethnic Poles (by blood) who spoke Russian and/or converted to Orthodoxy (this was not uncommon) would indeed be "undercounted" if one is looking for the "by blood" distribution. But would you call a Russophone Orthodox person with the last name ending by "-ski" still Polish? Also, if you have better sources, than the census results, bring them by all means. The census correctly reported the answers to the question. That questions were "biased" we can speculate of course.

For now, just for this page. According to the Russian Census (1897), the demographic distribution of the Governorate population was:

total: 3559229 (1767288 m. and 1791941 f.) making it the most populous governorate of the empire and third by the pop. density, after Moscow and Podolia. Distribution: Russians - 3034961 (including Little Russians — 2819145), Jews — 430489, Poles — 68791. Religious distribution: Orthodox — 2983736, Judaic — 433728, Catholic (Poles, German) etc. Urban: 459253 total of which 248 thousand in Kiev.

Kiev, circa 1894:

Total: 188488, of which "schismatics" [sic] 1380, Roman Catnolics: 20678, Jews: 14676, protestant: 2142, Muslim: 516: the rest orthodox"

The terminology of the contemporary source is preserved at this quote but note, the distribution and each ethnic and religious group. As I said, I will properly integrate this info. Just giving the info for now. Please no more "Poles being a second by number group".

BTW, I always liked the multiculturalism of Kiev and appreciated its RC churches. The draft of St. Alexander Roman Catholic Cathedral, Kiev is on my hard drive for a while along with a personal permission from one of the leaders of its parish to use her books and photos. Everything will be out at the due time. --Irpen 00:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Russian figures in the census should be treated as significantly overestimated; consider for example the difference in Russian figures for the Vilnius governorate: ~20% in 1897 and <3% in German census in 1916. That said, I am not sure what other censuses were carried in Kiev area after 1897? PS. Shouldn't Little Russians redirect to Ukrainians? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I have only seen praise to the Russian census (in terms of how professionally it was conducted and counted). That the questions may have been "biased" and a slightest reformulation might have given different results, is a separate issue. However, the numbers represent exactly the number of people who said that their native language was Polish and that their religion is RC. There was no question on ethnicity and there is no way to know.
Little Russians should not redirect to Ukrainians. In modern context it is inappropriate term. In 19th century context it was totally inoffensive and proper. A name so proper that Ukrainian activists from Shevchenko to Drahomanov, who introduced Ukraine as the term for the land, still considered the name of people to be Little Russians. The dedicated article explains that. Ukrainians are not Little Russians. Ukrainians are the modern nation. Little Russians is the correct name in the proper context. --Irpen 04:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The mainstream view is that Shevchenko was Ukrainian, not Little Russian. The mainstream view is that Ukrainians were known as Little Russians in the times and within the limits of the Russian Empire. Ukrainians and Little Russians are the same people, with the same language, and culture. Ukrainians is defined as "an East Slavic ethnic group primarily living in Ukraine". If we were to define Ukrainians as "people living in Ukraine", or "people with Ukrainian citizenship", or one of many other ways, then Ukrainians are not Mallorossians, but Ukrainians and Mallorossians are just different names for the same East Slavic ethnic group. --Greggerr (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
We can certainly use an article on Russian census of 1897, it is certainly notable. For the record, here is one criticial work in English language.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
There is an article. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Note, not all editors share your position that google-booking to search for random stuff helps content. --Irpen 02:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying that Shevchenko was not Ukrainian. What we cannot do is substitute the census data. What we can do is non-ORishly explain it. --Irpen 20:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying that we have to modify the historical census data. --Greggerr (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
It's best to let historical terminology stand for itself, without "modernizing" or "translating" it. Malorussian/Mallorossian/Little Russian is firmly enough established as a historico-ethnic term in English to avoid this necessity. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Content

What is the content of the article? Why "Kiev General Governorate" is given in a separate article, but "Kiev namestnichestvo" is described in this article? The very first sentence says that "Kiev Governorate was an administrative unit ... since 1708 ... until 1925". This is wrong. "Kiev Governorate" did not exist over the stated time. There were essentially different administrative units in different times known under the name "Kiev Governorate". (See Ukrainian karbovanets on how to deal with such issues). --Greggerr (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Kiev General Governorate was a totally different administrative unit that included Kiev, Volhynia and Podolia guberniyas that you will easily find when you click. The senior official of the Guberniya was the Governor (Gubernator), a civilian. The General Governor (General-Gubernator) was a higher ranking official supervising several Guberniyas of his General Governorate. HTH, --Irpen 20:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not helping much. I did read Kiev General Governorate a few times; don't assume that I didn't. But you see that the Kiev Governorate established by Peter the Great is essentially different from the Kiev Governorate in the 18th century. --Greggerr (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
It's different the same way as Ukraine in 1930s borders are different from the Ukraine in 1960s borders. There is a clear continuity. Guberniya was created by Peter. Renamed to viceroylaty and back, had its borders adjusted, etc. It existed, aside from being renamed to viceroyalty and back in clear continuity. At the same time a GG was created later and encompassed both this and other guberniyas. That was indeed a different unit. --Irpen 21:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you support the claim of continuity by reliable sources? Piotrus or somebody else might reasonably claim that it was nothing but continuity, and a new Governorate with the same name was established on Polish lands. Second, one of the sites, based on which you are writing the article, indicates continuity all the way up to these days. [1]. Based on what did you pick a particular continuity? Any reliable sources, or is it entirety original research? --Greggerr (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Listed sources devoted to Guberniya describe the entire period of history. What period you claim should be split off? --Irpen 22:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The sources describe the history of administrative division of Russian Empire. None of them is titled "Kiev Governorate". You are pulling material from the sources, which you think is related to Kiev Governorate, including "Kiev Namestnichestvo". --Greggerr (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Not getting your point. --Irpen 00:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
It's your claim that "It existed, aside from being renamed to viceroyalty and back in clear continuity". You have to support the "clear continuity", and the claim that it was "renamed". It was reestablished, not renamed in 1781 1796. The continuity is lacking here. In fact, Tarkhov states 1781 as the year of creation of the Kiev Governorate. ([2]) --Greggerr (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the source from the article:[3]

Catherine's reform: "В ходе этой реформы число губерний (основная часть которых стала называться наместничествами) увеличилось вдвое," Clearly suggest renaming rather than new units.
Pavel's reform: "Преобразовав все наместничества в губернии...". Note "Преобразовав" that is "modified". Clear continuity as well.

I don't understand what semantics are you trying to pull here. Let me reorganize the article now pls. --Irpen 00:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"Преобразовав" means "transformed". I corrected the year. Sorry. I was referring to the reestablishment of the Kiev Governorate. With three separate sections of the article (Peter's Governorate, Namestnichestvo, 18th century Governorate), the issue of (lack of continuity) is adequately addressed, I think. --Greggerr (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The lack of continuity is your OR. The sources clearly discuss how one comes from the other. Does modern Ukraine have continuity to the Ukrainian SSR? Does pre-1939 UkrSSR have continuity in post-war UkrSSR. And the latter to the 1960s Ukraine with Crimea attached? --Irpen 01:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


Please explain this edit[4]. What 1927? Try to be as specific as possible. --Irpen 21:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a typo. Should be 1727. I see, you already figured it out. --Greggerr (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Not really. --Irpen 21:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Any answer? --Irpen 00:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The two mentioned sources indicate that 3 provinces were split off. But there is no indication that Kiev Governorate was still "subdivided" into one Kiev province. If in fact it were subdivided into one province, still this should be written more clear to avoid confusion. The current version of the article is fine. --Greggerr (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poland

Irpen, can you clarify your comment from here - "last partition was not of Commonwealth, and the land was of Polish crown anyway"? All three partitions of Poland were the partitions of the PLC, and yes, the third partition included the lands of the Crown of the Polish Kingdom (compare maps: Image:Rzeczpospolita voivodships.png and Image:Rzeczpospolita Rozbiory 3.png). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't it you who said earlier that PLC seized to exist in first two partitions and that the third partition was that of Poland. There were sources of that at talk:PoP or somewhere else. In any case, we are talking about the crown's lands. --Irpen 20:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't recall that discussion - could you link the relevant section? Probably I was referring to the changes of May Constitution, which unified the country and abolished the union (IIRC), but of course, the Constitution was abolished after the Second Partition, so one could argue that the second partition might have not been of the Commonwealth, but the Third was. In any case, the Governorate was expanded primarily from the territories of the Second, not the Third Partition (although until we get better map/sources, it is plausible fragments of both the First and Third partition were incorporated in it, too).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't you see an inuse tag? You made a massive edit conflict with an edit on which I spent over an hour! What's the urge to not let me finish? --Irpen 21:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to forgo the mainpage. I have no need for stars and other toys. I just want to expand the article. Please be nice. --Irpen 21:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Please mind WP:OWN and play nice, indeed :) We all want to contribute to the article, and edit conflicts happen all the time, they are very easy to fix and you can always overwrite my version and incorporate the minor changes I did into yours later.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What OWN? I placed an inuse on top. Does it mean I claim OWN? If so, please nominte tl:inuse for deletion. I edited the article and expanded it extensively, restructured, etc. And many people helped and I don't mind that. But while restructure is in progress, it is very difficult to incorporate the conflicting interferences. Is it too much to ask for a so backburner article? This is not one of the "invasions" that get dozens of edits per day? Why can't wait? --Irpen 22:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus is 100% correct. Be nice. It's not your article. You seem to abuse the "inuse" tag, up until you get tired. --Greggerr (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. Irpen, please edit the article and expand it to your's heart content, but please assume good faith and try to integrate the small edits by other editors into your work; edit conflicts are easy to resolve, and we are all trying to help.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Greggerr, sometines I edit until I get tired. Happens. Piotrus, I do my best to integrate everything when I edit and hope others do the same when they edit. What is the problem here? --Irpen 23:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Be nice. This was not nice. The inuse template is not a mandate to claim ownership over the article. It's a way to ask for a favor. We had this discussion in the past. --Greggerr (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember this discussion in the past but I agree that the "inuse" tag is a request for a favor and Piotrus is under no obligation to honor it. He did not. Fine.

The reason I was upset was that he could not wait even though this is such an obscure article on a non-existing administrative unit of the long since gone state. Especially, after I made it clear that I have no urge to push it to the mainpage. With all this in place, what was the rush? Has it been one of the actively edited, frequently seen "invasions/occupation/massacre" articles, has it been pushed to the mainpage by me with the time running out, fine. But here there was none of that.

I said nothing at talk when the article was started like this. In such a short space, all the usual stuff is somehow here. We get PLC, we get partitions and we get voivodships. Unfamiliar user would have no idea that the article is not about Poland. Now, I have no problem with the Polish role in Ukrainian and Russian history. But should there be a proportion? Just some common sense? Ask Lithuanian editors. They will tell you more.

This came just after I create a Kharkov Governorate substub just to blue a redlink in an unrelated article. I did not even have time to announce mine yet. Suddenly this bunch of Governorate creations... Perhaps still unrelated? OK, fine.

What do you make of this injection of duplication, confusion and anachronism? I don't understand how this "Kiev capital" part could have made it at all if the editor at least read the article ) Explained here.)

The point is that it wasn't a single instance of lack of requested courtesy (which was not obligatory, as you say.) I don't know why even such an obscure topic cannot be edited nicely, has to get all the PLC/PoP/PBW/etc injected repeatedly and to have an inuse tag ignored. Perhaps it is a sign of times :( --Irpen 01:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update

I am largely done with the first stage of editing. So, if anyone wants to nominate it to DYK, if it is not expired yet, I won't mind.

Would be nice if controversial injections of stuff is avoided, but I never ever mind anyone to edit "my" articles. They are not "mine" in any case. "Inuse" was simply a request to give me a chance to finish. Thanks, --Irpen 05:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Ukraine

I can't understand why the simple fact that the Guberniya was a part of Soviet Ukraine needs to be obscured. Isn't it important? --Irpen 01:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

You might want to add Template:Infobox Former Subdivision. Renata (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not a big fan of infoboxes. It often requires condensing complex issues that cannot be answered in one word. Text body allows for that. Box does not.
Also, whoever thinks of adding various COA's (including to infoboxen) please be careful about using historic CoA's you may find at heraldy.com.ua . See Talk:Coat of arms of Kiev for why. They should be fine for modern CoA's but historic CoA is a tricky business in itself and the utmost caution is advised. --Irpen 05:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Khorol & Gorodishche

Regarding this, here is what I found. According to Yury Gotye's book about the 1727 administrative reform, the term "uyezd" was not much used in 1727 and was commonly substituted for "city". In other words, when one was saying "city", they normally meant the city proper as well as the territories around it (which often matched the borders of old, pre-reform uyezds). This could explain the discrepancies between what Fundukley says and other, more modern sources. If there are no objections, I'll remove the heradlicum ref, restore the mention of eleven uyezds, and add a side note.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Varia

According to Polish wiki, citing a 1883 source:

  • stat data current (1883?): 44,806 versts, population 2,144,276 (incl. 78,109 catholics and as of 1879, 277,49 Jews)
  • stat data past (1797?): 532,793 taxpayers
  • 1846: Berdichev added to the governorate
  • borders, topographical description, economy, education - read more here

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)