User talk:Irpen/Kijów in Kiev article

First round from talk:Kiev

Kijów in Kiev article

Witkacy wrote: "The city was part of the Kijów Voivodship, Poland for 200 years, so what is your problem?--Witkacy 18:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)"

Hi Witkacy, I have absolutely no problem with this fact of the city's history as well as with its being covered in the history section of the Kiev article where the name Kijów belongs. (BTW, so far it got only little coverage there if at all and your contribution would be of help). All I mean is that this is inappropriate to have this name mentioned in the very first line of the article based on that. Kiev being the part of the Russian Empire and Soviet Union is only one of several reasons why the Russian name is there (see earlier talk). I see Kijów Voivodship entirely appropriate in its own context but not in the first line of the article where the names that introduce the city for the first time are listed. The recent mess with PL names being added for the cities in Germany has already generated enough controversy. Let's just be a little more careful. So, I will revert this, and I hope this sounds convincing. Please, no flames -Irpen 18:37, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Having the Polish name for Kiev as the third piece of information in the article is ridiculous. We can include the Polish name in the section that discusses the Polish history of city. The Polish name is only marginally relevant, and having it in the first sentence is totally unnecessary clutter. (This is an agreement with Irpen) Nohat 18:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem with German names was completely different - the war started when some users around Chris 73 began to add German names in articles like Lechia Gdansk etc., its like someone would add the Polish name of Kiev to the FC Arsenal Kyiv article... All Polish articles with important cities, which belonged to Germany after the partitions of Poland, have the German in the first line of the article. As i already said Kiev was 200 years the seat of the Voivodship Governor of the Kijów Voivodship and part of Poland. Befor that, the city was part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania which was in personal union with Poland. So why should not the Polish name be mentioned in the first line? Especially in the context that - for an example - Rumia have the German name in the first line, but was a non important village populated by Poles in times when it was part of Germany.--Witkacy 19:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article has two names in the first line: Kiev as most commonly used English name (which also happen to coincide with the Russian name and the reasons for that is a separate issue being still hotly debated), and Kyiv a Ukrainian name used by the Urkainian government and, although infrequently but since recently somewhat more commonly, in English. Kijów is not used outside Poland, except for the part of the history when the city was under the PL or R-P. I am all for using Kijów in this context! Why won't you feel the gaps in the appropriate section of the article instead of fighting for Kijów in the first line? The deletion of Kijów from the first line was done through a consensus and it will simply not make it there as far as I can see. I don't even need to delete it myself, because then someone else will. Please understand, that this has nothing to do with anti-Polish sentiment of anyone. Actually, there is none in Kiev and among those who follow this article. There is a much stronger anti-Russian or "pro-Russian" sentiment in some UA-related articles and it causes enough trouble already. Let's not open another area for these fights. If you feel like writing about the Polish and Lithuanian period of the city history, I would be glad to help with sources and anything I can. I am not competent enough to write on this myself. Regards, -Irpen 19:48, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Please visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Vote on city naming. You may find this of interest. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

a Kijów/Kiev end note (hopefully)

Thanks to all for stopping this reversion cycle. Since WP:Point is a guideline and not a policy, I can see it might be acceptable under extreme circumstances. When pushed to an extreme stress in an unrelated DE-PL name dispute, several editors chose the Kiev article to make a point. Understandably, I was unhappy about it (I desperately want this to become a better article than it is) but I understand the "consistency and justice for all" logic. Since the intent of the effort was transparently given, I never saw this as foul play and I was simply requesting a cleanup. I was already unhappy about myself reverting the article more than once in a single day (and this was NOT vandalism which I revert comfortably). Approaching or not the 3RR limit I simply didn't want to continue this myself. Therefore I requested a self-reversion from the other side, but another user just went ahead and reverted even sooner. In any case, if we can get together and improve the city article, including the Kijów Voivodship period, I would be eager to give to it whatever time I have. Cheers, -Irpen 02:15, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Second round from user talk:Nohat

You have wrote: Having the Polish name for Kiev as the third piece of information in the article is ridiculous

Compare this two examples:

• Gdansk was part of Prussia/Germany in 1793–1806, 1815–1919 (and 100 years the city was occupied by the Teutonic Knights).

• Kiev was part of Poland since 1569 until 1671. Before that, it was part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which was in personal union with Poland.--Witkacy 19:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So? The Polish name for Kiev is not so important it needs to be the third piece of information in the article. It's a midly-relevant ancillary piece of information that can go in the section on the Polish history of the city. Nohat 20:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So I guess, you have the same opinion about German names in articles of Polish cities? --Witkacy 22:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"justice"? Vuvar1 23:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The relationship between German and Polish names is very different from Polish and Ukrainian names. Their histories are not analogous, so the comparison is not apt. Nohat 00:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is not true- situation is the the same (old borders, settlement). Why do you think that "their histories are not analogous"- could you explain me this, please. Vuvar1 01:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First, I want to note that changing other articles to prove a point elsewhere on Wikipedia is bad form (see WP:POINT). Nohat 02:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is good form. It's actually the famous Reductio ad absurdum. Space Cadet 03:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What I mean by "their histories are not analogous" is that the history of German names for Polish cities being used in English is not the same as the history of Polish names for Ukrainian cities being used in English. It is true that there are parallels in the history of the cities, but those similarities extend only to the histories of the cities, and not to the histories of the cities' names as used in English. The name Kijów is never and has never been used in English, so it does not need to be included at the top of the article. This is not the case for German names of Polish cities; for example "Danzig" has a long history in English of being used to refer to Gdansk. The situation is not the same for Kijów, so the fact that German names of Polish cities are included in the articles about those cities on Wikipedia does not make a very convincing argument that Polish names should be included in the articles about Ukrainian cities in Wikipedia. Should we include Japanese names of Chinese cities? The answer is no, because we should only include alternative names where they have a demonstrable history of being used in English. Note: this only applies to including the names in the very beginning of the article. Where relevant in the discussion of the history of cities, the historical foreign names should be included. Nohat 02:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So- what with Russian names in these atricles (Russian isn't oficial language in Ukraine)?Vuvar1 07:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a large minority of Russian speakers presently in Ukraine. There is only a tiny number of Polish speakers in Ukraine. The Russian name is relevant. The Polish name is not. Nohat 07:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The usage of foreign names in English language has nothing to do with it. Ideally all foreign names should be mentioned only once in history section, native name up front, and the English name consistently throughout the article about the city and related articles. Space Cadet 03:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The name Kijów is never and has never been used in English, so it does not need to be included at the top of the article.

1. Actually "Kijow" is used in English even today in historical context. (see google) 2. Where do you have the information from, that the name "Kijow" was never used in English? I guess the name was used in different (often misspelled) forms (like in the case of Gdansk) --Witkacy 09:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"First, I want to note that changing other articles to prove a point elsewhere on Wikipedia is bad form (see WP:POINT)."

The Polish name was removed by User:Mkweise [1] (Folks, let's not have ANOTHER Gdanzig...articles go under the current official name of cities, alright? )--Witkacy 09:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"There is a large minority of Russian speakers presently in Ukraine. There is only a tiny number of Polish speakers in Ukraine. The Russian name is relevant. The Polish name is not"

See your edit on [2] (Russian spelling not relevant in first line of article, added to bottom)--Witkacy 09:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) , Vuvar1 14:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First, a person is entitled to change an opinion on the subject. Personally, I allowed myself to change my opinion when convinced by other editor (see for example this). Second, if one wants to dig hard trying to find "true motives" of the editor, it is important not to jump to conclusions too fast. The arguments should be judged on their own merit. In the recent arguing about Kijow in the first line, I tried to answer specific points brought up by the editors who were inserting Kijow. I didn't invoke any hints that this may be a part of the more global campaign (see Wikipedia_talk:Polish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Minsk_i_Kijów), no matter what I think about it. I suggest we move on from this and write a chapter of Kijów Voivodship part of the city history (this is in support of Nohat). -Irpen 18:56, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

At this point, I'm ambivalent about the Russian name appearing in the first sentence—on the one had, it seems relevant because the English name may be based on the Russian name, and there are many Russian speakers still in Ukraine. On the other hand, its presence seems to make Polish nationalists and their apologists jealous and makes them want to put in a very old and not-widely-used name too because excluding it seems somehow "unfair" or whatever. A well-written article places relevant and important facts first, and less relevant and less important facts later. However, telling Polish nationalists that the Polish name of Ukrainian cities is not particularly relevant seems to invoke a particularly unpleasant breed of defensive response that involves repeating the same tired arguments and making weak ad hominem attacks in a misguided quest to force anyone who opposes them into a logical contradiction that might somehow force them to admit that they were wrong. I'm sorry your feelings are hurt or your pride is wounded, but cry me a river. If something is not relevant, it shouldn't go in the first sentence, regardless of how many people's feelings it hurts. The Polish name Kijov is old and not widely used and doesn't need to go in the first sentence. So get over it. Nohat 19:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"to make Polish nationalists" - "However, telling Polish nationalists that"

... racist remarks. Your POV and arguments should be based on logic not polonophobia (espacilly for a member of the ArbCom).--Witkacy 15:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nohat, I respect your mixed feelings on the issue. I just want to let you know that I wrote on this subject earlier (and added more to this lately) at Talk:Kiev#How_to_introduce_Kiev/Kyiv_spellings_in_the_intro. Cheers, -Irpen 19:50, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Irpen. 100 years in PLC deserves a mention in lead and a section/subarticle, but the very name Kijów, as an alternative spelling - not necessarily. I wouldn't add it and I wouldn't remove it. Perhaps a compromise would be to link the Kijów Voivodship and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from history section of the lead? On another note, Noah, while I agree we are seeing some Polish nationalism at work, we are also seeing equally unhelpfull Ukrainian/other nationalism at work from some other users, so I'd advice you to avoid accusing only one side of this argument of such motives.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The WP as a whole is certainly prone to many sorts of nationalisms at work, no doubt. BTW, I am the first who intervenes when I notice any, but especially RU or UA, nationalism bias makes it into the articles. However, the particular issue at hand (Kijow in the first line) was provoked specifically by the hurt feeling of the Polish national pride (and mostly from a completely different conflict which is especially annoying) and the other recent footprint in the Minsk article would better be addressed too.

A general talk that any nationalism is bad and should be opposed is a trivial issue not worth repeating. I think that this particular case was resolved entirely appropriately on its own merit. When one sees other nationalisms in other articles or, particularly RU or UA nationalism in Kiev article, please correct it or raise the issue and we will all correct it. Let's move on. -Irpen 20:06, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Nohat, sorry if continued usage your talk page for this rant annoys you :)

Black Book

Nohat, why did you delete that page? Was it listed on vfd? It was a project page and I'm sure it should be there. Whether your remarks on Talk:Kiev are biased or not is another issue, but I believe that you should've at least consulted the author of that project before you deleted it. Please be so kind as to explain why was the page deleted. Halibutt 23:18, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I decided to start that archive to avoid listing all of the users involved on RfC or any other page. I simply wanted to keep the things civil and canalized, without having to resort to all the painful dispute resolution process, accusations and so on. Your reaction was certainly not what I expected. Halibutt 23:21, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

A "Black Book" which exists solely to vilify users who you disagree with consistutes personal attacks. The page was deleted per Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. If you have a problem with a user's behavior, the proper course of action is to list that user on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Compiling a list of users who have said things you disagree with, particularly if that list is not kept in user space, and demanding they apologize and rescind their comments in some kind of kangaroo court is totally unacceptable. The dispute resolution process exists for a reason, and creating an end-run around it is neither appropriate nor warranted. Nohat 23:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nohat, please, calm down. Nobody has nothing against you and nobody is demanding anything from you. We're all friends here. Witkacy noted that that you assumed those who oppose you are nationalists, which in where I live is rather a serious offence. Personally I'm pretty sure you meant nothing wrong, but still, your remarks could be treated as biased.

Anyway, do you really believe that starting an ArbCom or RfC every time someone assumes bad faith is a good idea? That's what I would call escalation of the conflict. And that's what we're trying to avoid. Of course, if you insist Witkacy could do that, but perhaps there is a way to make you cooperate? Halibutt 04:27, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I have done anything wrong, and I don't believe this situation merits further comment by any of the parties involved. I'm not the one who created a "black book" for publically harassing anyone who says something that might be construed as insulting to Poles. That's escalation of conflict.

As for the issue at question, don't expect me to rescind any statements I made about nationalism, because that's exactly what was going on at the Kiev article. I called Witkacy on his disingenuousness and it smarted. I see no need to make concessions for his wounded pride. Hopefully next time everyone will follow the Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point guidelines, as I suggested previously.

As for RfC, I heartily encourage Witkacy or anyone else to start one against me. Then it will become apparent to everyone that this whole thing is a farce. Nohat 05:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Third round user talk:Witkacy

Hi, when you see things like Kiev, please "just say no", and just turn around and walk away and work on adding good content somewhere else. Thanks! Noel (talk) 19:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are right :) But... some users removing Polish names in articles of cities which once were part of Poland, and on the other hand they adding foreign names in articles of Polish cities... And even in such non-important like Rumia.--Witkacy 22:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, as they say, "Rome wasn't built in a day"! Yes, I agree, the behaviour you mention (adding foreign names in articles of Polish cities) is not helpful, and we certainly need to bring that under control. (As you will recall, I have tried to do some of this in the past, e.g. with Zivinbudas).

But on your other point ("removing Polish names in articles of cities which once were part of Poland"), I don't quite agree. You need to distinguish between removing mention that Kiev was once part of Poland (something I would definitely strongly oppose) from removing the Polish name for Kiev - a name which is, for most English-speakers, not useful. I mean, really, where am I going to run across the Polish name of Kiev, in anything I'm going to read? Noel (talk) 16:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks again and if you feel like improving the coverage of 200+ years history of Kiev you were referring to, I will do my best to help. -Irpen 06:34, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Fourth round user talk:Irpen and user talk:Space Cadet

from article edit history

Read the talk pages, Space Cadet!

I did twice, so? You have the Russian name, so you should have the Polish name, as well!

Reasons why we have a ru name and not a pl name is specifically discussed at the Talk:Kiev#Kij.F3w_in_Kiev_article. Please care to respond before reverting. -Irpen 03:20, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Delete the unnecessary Russian name and none of my homies will bother you no more.Space Cadet 03:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I repeat, the issue of the Russian name being necessary or unnecessary is discussed at the ref above. If you have anything to say about this, please respond there before bringing havoc to the article. There is a bunch of reasonable people there and if you make a good case, the PL name may get through. The arguments at the level "if RU, then PL" without explanation and response to the points already raised there are unhelpful. -Irpen 03:44, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Stop the exadge! As if mentioning Kijów brought an actual "havoc" to anything! Shyaa...riiight! Logically if Danzig belongs in the Gdansk article, then Kijów belongs in Kiev! Unless you agree with the Britannica convention: current English name throughout, native name bolded in the first sentence, nothing else, unless in the "history" section. In the above case, however, help in getting rid of German names from Gdansk, Szczecin and Wroclaw articles. Your support of logic and common sense will be appreciated. Sincerely, Space Cadet 04:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, what you are doing is exactly a WP:Point: "If Kiev than Kijow" and the opposite: "Will remove Kijow in you remove Kiev" and then too "If Danzig, than Kijow". Please note from the WP:Point page "If you must..." section:

If after reading this you are still adamant in your desire to pursue a campaign of illustrative editing to demonstrate your point (as you might if your attempts at reasoned discussion have failed), please do so in a responsible fashion that minimizes the ill effects of your campaign. Bear in mind these key points:

• Think through your edits for a while before enacting them. If applicable, wait until you're sober.
• Stop your campaign once your point is made. Don't engage in an edit war to save content you added for rhetorical reasons. People can still see what you did in the page history, and you can link to an old version of the page if you wish to draw attention to it from a talk page.
• Clean up after yourself, reverting content and listing pages for deletion as necessary once you're done making your point.
• Like leaving a restaurant without tipping in societies where tipping is customary, doing this often makes it clear that you're a boor.

I don't want to revert for now. I think you should cleanup after you tried to make a point. And, BTW, you didn't have to because you can very well attempt "a reasoned discussion" as the guideline suggest! Once again, I invite you to respond at the talk:Kiev if you have anything to they on the issue itself. -Irpen 04:16, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Irpen, I'm not on any campaign per se, except of course the "campaign for logic, consistency and justice for all". Your "sobriety" remark was very rude. Your consistent ignoring of my point, only a little annoying. Tell me what you think about the way Britannica handles those issues. Space Cadet 04:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The advise above was a quote from the WP guidelines WP:Point directly applicable here, and of course I have no reason to think that you were literally not sober. It was part of the phrase: "Think through your edits for a while..." Read the whole thing again if you please.

I am not ignoring your point? I am trying to convinse you to express it clearly at the talk:Kiev page. I have no opinion on Britannica's policy. I would like to stick to the issue at hand which is: (1) should the Kiev article have a RU name in the first line, and (2) should it have the PL name there, or is the RU name alone a sufficient reason for a PL name, or whether the German/Polish naming dispute somehow affects how the Kiev article should look like. If you have anything to say about those issues, please use the talk:Kiev page. Several people, including user:Witkacy, wrote there. You choose to ignore the talk page and simply revert. The justification you give, your quote: "if Danzig belongs in the Gdansk article, then Kijów belongs in Kiev!" and "Delete the unnecessary Russian name and none of my homies will bother you" clearly shows that this is a WP:Point issue. If making a point re the Russian name and an unrelated Gdansk issues is only part of your reasons, please state the rest of at the talk page in response to what's already said there. I am only calling on you reverting your editing yourself if you are motivated solely by WP:Point-like reasons. I have no problem to discuss the issue itself. I hope you will agree to stop this revert war. If you please help improving the Polish section of Kiev history I would really appreciate that. -Irpen 06:30, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Just a small point of order: Britannica does mention multiple names. Please take a look at, for example: Szczecin, Vilnius, Kiev etc.

Also, since you are engaged in many edit wars over city names, I wonder if you could comment on the ideas discussed in Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Vote on city naming. Since so many of these edit wars are really fought on the basis: "I have to include name A in B, since name C is included in D" and various other variations, we are trying to develop a uniform standard for including names, which would hopefully keep everybody happy. If that is at all possible. Balcer 07:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you adding Kijow to the top of the article because you think it belongs there, or just because you're making a point about Gdansk/Danzig or some German names somewhere? If you have an issue with something in the article about Gdansk, deal with it there and don't cause trouble elsewhere. If you think this belongs in Kiev, then explain your edits at talk:Kiev before starting a revert war. Give us a reason to believe that you're not simply vandalizing the article to make a point. —Michael Z. 2005-06-10 13:54 Z

I guess I wasn't sober, yesterday.Space Cadet 09:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again, I just posted a message at Talk:Kiev#a_Kij.F3w.2FKiev_end_note_.28hopefully.29. Regards, Irpen 02:29, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)