Talk:Kiev Oblast

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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Suggested move

"Kyiv Oblast" is the official transliteration of a Ukrainian province name. I suggest a move per this policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Ukrainian_names. Here is Ukrainian President's webpage with the official translation of Ukraine's Constitution, which clearly mentions "Kyiv Oblast": http://www.president.gov.ua/en/content/p_10309_e.html. Please note that for an average English speaker the expression "Kiev Oblast" is basically unfamiliar. There is no substantial reason to modify "Kyiv Oblast" from its official transliteration.--Andrew Alexander 02:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The expression "Kyiv Oblast" is around 15 times more wide-spread on the Internet comparing to "Kiev Oblast": [1] (11,500 vs 718).--Andrew Alexander 03:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

  • oppose. The page the user cites speaks only about the transliteration rules. That is we have to have a system that would choose between Mykolayiv, Mykolaiv or Mykolajiv. The primary rule, underlying the ones derived from it is here Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Quote from there reads: If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works. Based on this, it has been decided to use Kiev long time ago and until the usage in the media between Kiev and Kyiv at least levels out. Besides, Britannica has a separate article for the oblast itself, called Kiev oblast --Irpen 02:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • support Kyiv Oblast is neither of the following: "a person, country, town, movie or book". It's a name of the province in Ukraine. I don't understand why Wikipedia policies have to be ignored in this case.--Andrew Alexander 02:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not until "Kiev" is moved to "Kyiv", and that's not happening any time soon. The oblast, after all, is named after the city. I do not see a compelling reason to use different spellings.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 03:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Logically, the oblast is not just an "area around city of K__v". It is an officially established administrative entity of independent (and, legally, solely Ukrainophonic) state. Respectively, there are official acts regulating the existence of the oblast, namely the Constitution of Ukraine and corresponding laws of Ukraine. Undoubtfully, these documents are layed in Ukrainian and the oblast is called Kyivs'ka there. For a comparative example, St.Petersburg is a center of the Leningrad Oblast (not St.Petersburg oblast). Ukrained 17:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose for same reasons given above. Either have Kyiv and Kyiv Oblast, or Kiev and Kiev Oblast, but it makes no sense to have two different namings, it can get very confusing. Besides Kiev is the normal english version. Gryffindor 18:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose This proposal is made on the basis of a false statement: The official transliteration is either (full) Kyivs’ka oblast’, or (simplified) Kyivska oblast. —Michael Z. 2005-12-14 06:58 Z

[edit] Comments

Let's not overload voting section and place comments here. It seems to me from what I read in the readers' comments, we can rephrase the problem as follows. What is the source of the term, so to speak. Is it just an oblast around Київ or this is a unit on its own with its name totally independent of its capital. I can see good arguments for both versions (please do not repeat them, they are said already above). Please note, however, that if we proceed from the assumption that "Київська область" is a name on its own and should be treated independently of the city name Київ, we should base the article on the Ukrainian word Київська and not Київ. As such, the name "Kyiv Oblast" relates to neither IMO.

Now, what the English translation of the Ukrainian constitution is using is not a rule set in stone because it is just that, a translation. There is an absolute clarity only what the Ukrainian name is, which is "Київська область". That the best translation for encyclopedia is Kyivs'ka Oblast or Kyiv Oblast or Kiev Oblast does not follow from that directly. What matter for us is our naming conventions, their interpretation (since they are not crystal clear), and the so-called "common law", that is established traditions in WP and other encyclopedia. That Britannica call the subject's article "Kiev Oblast" should also be taken into account. --Irpen 22:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Instead of making wild guesses of what the name should be, why not read the policy of Wikipedia? Here, it says For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used. For historic reasons, many names are also presented in Russian, Polish, etc.. Is official translation of Ukraine's Constitution given on the President web site part of "Ukrainian National system"? Even if we take the first rule of that policy, the province still needs to be called "Kyiv Oblast" due its frequency on the Internet. The rule doesn't say that the name has to copy something from Britannica. It just says "conventional spelling". It is. 15 times over "Kiev Oblast".--Andrew Alexander 01:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I already explained to you that the piece you quote is only for transliteration rules. The primary policy I quoted too. Kyiv Oblast makes less sence than Kyivs'ka Oblast. We do not have to translate the same way as the guy who translated the constitution. The original constitution is in Ukrainian and not in English. The legislature only voted for a Ukrainian text. I don't know what "official translation" means and even if there is one so called, it doesn't mean much. Official translation of Київ is Kyiv according to a Ukrainian government. However, the law applies only to the UA gov publications. English language not only isn't regulated by Ukrainian legislature, it is not regulated at all. At wiki, we only have conventions and our goal here is to decide which name better suites our convention. --Irpen 01:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you misuse Wikipedia rules. The rule does not say anything about transliteration, you imply it to say it, but it doesn't. Another big misuse is to try to apply Wikipedia to set trends and conventions. Wikipedia has to reflect conventions. How many times have you used Google to pound in the point regarding Kiev? Now please, apply the same point. Oh yes, vain hopes...--Andrew Alexander 02:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
While supporting the suggested move, I would say we should set conventions in the cases of countries poorly represented in English-speaking world. And the convention must be either Kyiv Oblast (for the reasons I stated above) or, what I discovered in the history of the oblast pages, Kyivska Oblast. Ukrained
Please also have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukrainian subdivisions and its talk page, where we worked out the conventions for naming Ukrainian oblasts in English. Note that the Ukrainian name is present in the lead paragraph "Київська область, Kyivs’ka oblast’ or Київщина, Kyivshchyna". —Michael Z. 2005-12-14 19:50 Z
Second that. When at its talk, make sure you rad the discussion starting from "How the city name Днiпропетровськ is spelled in English" and to the end of the page. Yes, make sure you read all of it to the end. --Irpen 20:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I am kind of not surprized that Andrew Alexander assumes bad faith of anyone who disagrees with him. Go read the rules yourself first. As to google, I agree that it is an important factor. But it is not a one single factor to decide. If you remember what I said earlier, there are three factors to consider for a modern term : Google, other encyclopedias and Major papers. "Other encyclopedia" is shown above. I just checked major papers. Oblast is obscure for them (4 counts all with Kiev BTW) but they use "region" or "province" to denote not just a generic area, but exactly an oblast. Here we go: "Kyiv region" OR "Kyiv province" - zero counts, "Kiev Region" + "Kiev Province" - 11 counts. Not much but not zero.

One second. What does "Kiev Region" + "Kiev Province" have to do with the name of this article? This is silly. To support a Russian version of the name, you claim that that English versions are wide spread.;) --Andrew Alexander 22:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is the list:

  • The Herald (Glasgow), March 18, 1996,
  • The Guardian (London), April 8, 1996
  • The Herald (Glasgow), April 24, 1996
  • The Daily Telegraph (Sydney, Australia), April 24,
  • The Guardian (London), July 12, 1996
  • The Ottawa Citizen, June 15, 1998
  • The Jerusalem Post, September 30, 2001
  • The New York Times, December 1, 2004
  • The New York Times, November 26, 2004
  • Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, November 26, 2004
  • The Jerusalem Post, May 25, 2004

Add the four above with Oblast and you get 15 vs 0. That's for post-independence time (last ten years). The 20 years search gives 70+ vs 0 towards Kiev but the language may have evolved since the times of Gorby. So, it is less relevant.

But getting back to the main argument, we should just decide whether it is a single term or simply a derivation from the city name. In the former case, it should be Kyivs'ka Oblast, in the latter case, it should be Kiev Oblast.

It's great that you "got back to the main argument", because that's the only argument here. Call this province whatever Ukrainian official name that makes sense, use the President's translation of the Constitution even.--Andrew Alexander 22:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we pretty much heared each other. Neither you nor I can say anything new. If it gets voted to the name you propose, I will live with it just fine. I think I am OK with Kyiv much more than you are with Kiev but I will leave the reasons why I think so out of this page. --Irpen 03:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

So exactly did you hear anyone if you continue ignoring this encyclopedia's policies? Should the Ukrainian naming policy get voted away by a bunch of Russian editors each time someone wants to apply that policy?--Andrew Alexander 22:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Could you also do a similar check for "Kyivs(')ka" and "Kievskaya"? I'm kind of curious if these are used in English at all.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Ezhiki, I will check again, but if my memory serves me well, I did check that yesterday and both returned zero counts. But I will post here once I get to rechecking this. --Irpen 19:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Now, please check the name of this article. Does this return anything?--Andrew Alexander 22:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, neither "Kiev Oblast" nor "Kyiv Oblast" returned any hits at all. For the totally separate reasons we ended up using "Oblast" in article names, although some argued that articles should be called "XXX Region" or "XXX Province". If we ended up with whatever of the latter versions, we would have gotten the exact hits in Lexus Nexus with "Kiev". Since "Oblast" is kind of unique and only ised in Wikipedia and Britannica among the ref sources, we cannot find an exact match in the media.
However, this unit (oblast/province/region) is overwhelmingly called "Kiev XXX" by the media. So it is called by EB. We may change the WP convention and rename all oblasts to "regions". It would still be "Kiev Region" as per the media usage. Another way, is to get rid of sticking with nouns in all oblasts. Then it would be Kyivska Oblast. But in none of this cases the name you suggest (Kyiv Oblast) makes any sense. --Irpen 22:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course, a Ukrainian name for a Ukrainian province doesn't make any sense. A Russian name, however small number of hits obtained, makes a huge amount of sense. That is, not. Pick whatever name you like, but it has to mean "oblast", not just some vicinity of Kyiv. And you need to pick the most wide spread name, and also accepted by the Ukrainian government. Because that's what "Ukrainian National system" would generally mean. This isn't "Russian editors vote away a Ukrainian name", this is "Wikipedia has to enforce its own rules". This simply confirms that violating a policy means nothing around here.--Andrew Alexander 23:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  1. In the article I quoted above "Kiev Region" or "Kiev Province" means not some vicinity of Kiev but exactly "Kyivska Oblast". That we chose to use "Oblast" instead of "region" or "province" for article names was the result of an unrelated discussion. We can resume that discussion and decide to rename all articles to "provinces".
  2. I didn't say Ukrainian name makes no sense. I said Kyiv Oblast makes none. Kyivska Oblast would make sense IMO, which is a perfectly Ukrainian name, but would require us to reconsider the convention and rename all articles by applying a different logic to naming. Maybe it is worthy. It was discussed and decided to stick to the noun forms.
  3. "Accepted by UA government" is not an argument. Ukrainian government has no authority over the general usage in the English language. It does have an authority over how the governmental organizations must write. As such, it may mandate the usage of the State sponsored Holos Ukrayiny, but not in the international English language media or the non-Ukrainian ref sources.
  4. Ukrainian National System applies for transliteration.
  5. I repeatedly told you that your interpretation of "Wikipedia's own rules" is flawed. If others see that my interpretation is flawed and your is right, we will rename the article.
  6. The rest of your message is the rant that does not warrant any response. --Irpen 23:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
There is a set of arbitrary assumtions in the rant above. Starting from calling "oblast" a "region" and ending with calling a "Ukrainian National system" a tranliteration tool. The latter is especially funny when reading the next sentence in the same policy. And yes, a Russian name is still "above all". What a joke.--Andrew Alexander 00:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander, I thought you were discussing this seriously. Had I realized that this was simply trolling, I would not have wasted my time as Do not feed the trolls is the golden rule that I learned around here. In any case, let me repeat that people here have mostly heard each other at this and other article talks. If I failed to convince you, I gues I will live with it. --Irpen 00:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Amazing, not only do you push Russian names disregarding rules and conventions of Wikipedia, you also manage to accuse people not agreeing with you of trolling.--Andrew Alexander 02:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read this slowly and try to understand. Kiev Oblast is not the Russian name which is "Киевская область" and the closest to this in English is "Kievskaya Oblast". On the other hand Kyiv Oblast is not the Ukrainian name, and the closest name to the Ukrainian one is Kyivs'ka Oblast, I do not object to the latter, provided that we decide, after a discussion, that names of all oblasts should be changed in WP, such as "L'vivska Oblast" instead of current Lviv Oblast, "Zhytomyrs'ka Oblsat" instead of current Zhytomyr Oblast, etc. "Kyiv Oblast" you propose is neither a Ukrainian name, nor an appropriate English name. If Kyiv/Kiev usage in English changes with time sufficiently to move the Kiev article, we would use "Kyiv Oblast" too provided that we don't change our mind regarding both a noun form and a rare in English "Oblast" word. Otherwise, it would be "Kyivska Oblast" or "Kyiv Province" or "Kyiv Region" or a combination thereof that would suite the evolved convention at some future point. It is pointless for us to keep saying each other again "read the conventions", we have both read them already. Other people are also, hopefully, reading the convention and see this discussion. If this vote gets flooded by newbies recruited from elsewhere, that would be a different story, of course, but I don't want even to talk about this for now.

As for "accusing you in trolling", I strongly feel so and I said so. You cannot deny that I tried to talk to you here patiently for a long enough time despite all the past contradictions. If you bring in some new points, I will respond. If you keep going in circles, I will not be repeating what I said for a teenth time. I let other editors here judge, whether I was right and fare. --Irpen 04:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Logically, the oblast is not just an "area around city of K__v". It is an officially established administrative entity of independent (and, legally, solely Ukrainophonic) state. Respectively, there are official acts regulating the existence of the oblast, namely the Constitution of Ukraine and corresponding laws of Ukraine. Undoubtfully, these documents are layed in Ukrainian and the oblast is called Kyivs'ka there. For a comparative example, St.Petersburg is a center of the Leningrad Oblast (not St.Petersburg oblast). Ukrained 17:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

  • St. Petersburg is not a correct example. St. Petersburg and Leningradskaya have different roots, while Kyiv and Kyivska do not. This is a matter of common English spelling and consistency, not of a new name. Neither Kiev nor its oblast were renamed.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Practically, they could be renamed. I'm not familiar with the exact texts of Soviet and Ukrainian SSR Constitutions. May be they (or other laws) included the phrase Kievskaya oblast. But since the adoption of the 1990 constitutional ammendments, and later the 1996 Constitution, the predecessing legislature lost its force. So the only legitimate name for the oblast, according to the Art. 133 of Constitution, is Київська область - no matter how the city is named. Ukrained 19:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
This misses the point. There is no question that Київська область is the correct Ukrainian name and a name of the article in ua-Wiki. The question is only the name for the article in the English L encyclopedia. Britannica that AndriyK loves to quote has a separate article for this Oblast as I pointed above. The name of the EB article is "Kiev Oblast". --Irpen 20:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It is nonsense to have Kiev and Kyiv Oblast simultaneously. --Ghirlandajo 17:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

  • May be we should rename the Leningrad Oblast for the very same reason:)? Ukrained 18:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    The "Kiev" part is common to both the city and the oblast, while for Leningrad Oblast it's not the case. St. Petersburg and Leningrad Oblast are different in the same way as Lutsk and Volyn Oblast—note that nobody here is trying to rename Volyn Oblast to Lutsk Oblast.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The "Kiev" part is common to both the city and the oblast? - don't get your point. It is common in Ukrainian, and it is Kyiv. In English WP, we should only consider that Kiev is a large city with its own global image, while oblast is purely the administrative unit of Ukraine, exclusively named by Ukrainian government.Ukrained
If I may so remind you, Ukrainian government does not have any authority over what name should be used in English. If English speakers still use "Kiev" and/or "Kiev Oblast", that's an unfortunate fact for Ukrainians, but a fact nevertheless.mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
See statistic above provided by Andrew Alexander :) Ukrained 21:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I admit I missed that. Still, I doubt very much that an average reader knows what an "oblast" is, let alone the difference between "Kyiv oblast" and "Kiev oblast". Such a reader will at least recognize the "Kiev" portion in "Kiev oblast". "Kyiv oblast"—that contraction is likely just to be ignored. This is strictly my personal opinion, of course, yet one that prevents me from changing my vote based on the google results (which I normally strongly consider) alone.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
nobody here is trying to rename Volyn Oblast to Lutsk Oblast - lucky we are... Ukrained
This sarcasm is misplaced. It was said to illustrate the difference and not to show some patronizing or mentoring attitude. --Irpen 20:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote this move is very complicated, it can be done since Wiki is not consistent, but it better be resolved on naming conventions, but I would propose adding Kyiv oblast into the lead, since it is not Ukrainian but English from Ukrainian and the formal name of the city–Gnomz007(?) 18:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Done. --Irpen 18:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This proposal is made on the basis of a false statement: The official transliteration is either (full) Kyivs’ka oblast’, or (simplified) Kyivska oblast. —Michael Z. 2005-12-14 06:58 Z

Is Ukrainian Consitution posted on the Ukrainian President web site a false statement too?--Andrew Alexander 22:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The Ukrainian Constitution does not state that Kyiv Oblast is a transliteration of "Київська область;" it isn't a transliteration of anything. The Constitution's translators formulated the English name "Kyiv Oblast," following the same convention that they use for the English name of the city Kyiv. Wikipedia uses a different naming convention.
If you're going to get picky and technical about these things, then you should get it right, or you'll simply be accused of pursuing your political agenda rather than trying to improve Wikipedia. —Michael Z. 2005-12-15 17:25 Z
Michael, the translators chose the compromise of the most common and precise name for that Ukrainian province. After that the name has gained an official status since the translation is now authorized by the Ukrainian President office. It's fine to fight someone's "political agenda" as long as that fight is within the rules of Wikipedia. In the case the rules are ignored, the fight looses its validity. The Wikipedia rule states clearly to use Ukrainian national standards for geographical names. In this case such name also beats its Russian equivalent 15 to 1 in Google search results.--Andrew Alexander 20:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Ditto.!I told you the same almost verbatim here. See the discussion below. And I think "would simply be accused" is an understatement, but maybe that's just me. --Irpen 17:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Result

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. WhiteNight T | @ | C 17:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kotsiubynske

Answering my own question: the town of Kotsiubynske (Ukrainian: Коцюбинське, historically Bilychi village) is indeed an exclave of Kiev Oblast in Kiev city. It has been pretty hard to investigate online :( and I found only this supposedly broken link to support the info. Looks like UA govt is hiding this silly geo-bureaucratic fact as much as possible :))). Ukrained 22:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] City-states ???

OK guys, who's adding fantasies about Kyiv and Sevastopol as city-states? These are municipalities of the unitary centralized state emerged from totalitarian rule only 15 years ago! What are you talking about :))? They remain very dependent from the central government, at least by formal means. Please discuss such bold assumptions at talks first.AlexPU