Talk:Kharkiv/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Kharkiv. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
edits by taivo
he-he, Taivo I know you an american professor, taught in Ukraine in the past and so on and so forth, but please refrain from doing reckless edits of what you believe is right. I think we Ukrainians know better what language is spoken in Kharkiv. Also, for an english spelling name of Kharkiv go look it up in Oxford dictionary( this is a response to your comment - we, AMERICANS, refere to Kharkiv here(ed. in the US) as Kharkov. You can refere to it whatever you like, but note that since spanish is super-widespread in the US, we don't call boston, new-york or any other city in a way it's pronounced in Spanish, let alone add "different name" of american cities in spanish, just because spanish is widely spoken in large such cities as New-york or Boston or any other city. Rkononenko (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yawn. This has been discussed a hundred times with Ukrainian nationalists. It doesn't matter what the Rada wants, common English usage prevails in the English Wikipedia and "Kharkov" is just as common in English as "Kharkiv". Live with it. (Taivo (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC))
- We include Kharkov so that readers using older texts know they are at the correct page when they arrive here. The fact that English language sometimes uses Kharkov may be regrettable to some people, but it's a fact we have to accommodate. Likewise, Kiev is still the standard spelling found in English language material, so please do not replace it. Knepflerle (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- We don't list the Spanish name for Boston because Spanish is not a major language in Boston. We list the Russian name for Kharkiv because the majority of residents of Kharkiv speak Russian and "Kharkov" is common in English texts--just as common as "Kharkiv". (Taivo (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC))
- @Taivo. You can yawn as much as you want, as well as, quoting you "You(ed. user Rkononenko) are being reported for edit warring". Dude, do you really think I can't do edits using proxy server? I'm only changing things that were spelled incorrectly in the Article, and used Russian language as a source, not Ukrainian. I mean WTF, this is Ukraine, not Russia, and things here are spelled in Ukrainian and not in Russian. So I totally think that all of my edits are in lieu with Wikipedia rules and will only benefit the artile. Lastly, stop doing russian-spelling-promoting edits in this artice and go give some more lectures at whatever university you are teaching.Rkononenko (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- @Taivo; and concerning your response as to why you don't spell American cities(in particular, you referred to Boston) in Spanish, it's simply pathetic. By the way I live in Cambridge, (which as you know is basically Boston) and when walking in Cambridge/Boston suburbs one mostly hears Spanish(not English). From what I hear from your fellow countrymen, many American cities now have the majority of residents speaking Spanish and not English. So your argument is once again pathetic. and by the way, the majority of kharkiv does not speak Russian, that was probably your impression when you lived in still soviet-oriented-ukraine of 90s, but things have changed there since then.Rkononenko (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- An aside, for comparison: 5.9% of Cambridge, MA registered using Spanish at home (verify); 44.3% of Kharkiv Oblast registered as using Russian (verify). Incidentally, I'm always struck by how much Haitian Creole you hear around Boston. Knepflerle (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Concerning Knepflerle's side note, the numbers you're giving are 1. from 2001 census (wich means they are outdated, since after the collapse of the USSR and Ukrainian independence considerably more people started to speak Ukrainian) 2. those census numbers still confirm that the majority( 53,8%) are registered as using Ukrainian, which breaks Taivo's claim that most of Kharkiv speaks Russian. A side note from me - I didn't get the thing about Haitian Creole. What did you mean? Rkononenko (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- They were the most recent figures I could easily find. I do believe 2001 is somewhat post-USSR to if my memory is correct! I just thought it was interesting to get an idea of the relative size of these minorities - although the numbers will have changed, there is an order-of-magnitude difference between the two, and I would be surprised if this were not still the case.
- As for Haitian Creole: the Boston area is the only place I hear this language spoken on the streets, and I found this interesting as I'm quite interested in the language. Knepflerle (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- @Knepflerle, unrelated to the dispute at hand. You said you sometimes hear Haitian Creol in Boston area, are you also from Cambridge?Rkononenko (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Concerning Knepflerle's side note, the numbers you're giving are 1. from 2001 census (wich means they are outdated, since after the collapse of the USSR and Ukrainian independence considerably more people started to speak Ukrainian) 2. those census numbers still confirm that the majority( 53,8%) are registered as using Ukrainian, which breaks Taivo's claim that most of Kharkiv speaks Russian. A side note from me - I didn't get the thing about Haitian Creole. What did you mean? Rkononenko (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- @Taivo. You can yawn as much as you want, as well as, quoting you "You(ed. user Rkononenko) are being reported for edit warring". Dude, do you really think I can't do edits using proxy server? I'm only changing things that were spelled incorrectly in the Article, and used Russian language as a source, not Ukrainian. I mean WTF, this is Ukraine, not Russia, and things here are spelled in Ukrainian and not in Russian. So I totally think that all of my edits are in lieu with Wikipedia rules and will only benefit the artile. Lastly, stop doing russian-spelling-promoting edits in this artice and go give some more lectures at whatever university you are teaching.Rkononenko (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- We don't list the Spanish name for Boston because Spanish is not a major language in Boston. We list the Russian name for Kharkiv because the majority of residents of Kharkiv speak Russian and "Kharkov" is common in English texts--just as common as "Kharkiv". (Taivo (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC))
- We include Kharkov so that readers using older texts know they are at the correct page when they arrive here. The fact that English language sometimes uses Kharkov may be regrettable to some people, but it's a fact we have to accommodate. Likewise, Kiev is still the standard spelling found in English language material, so please do not replace it. Knepflerle (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- "things here are spelled in Ukrainian and not in Russian"; things here (as in at en.wp) are spelled in English. It's why we use Prague and not Praha, Moscow and not Moskva. Vienna comes from the French name for Wien, not the German. We still use it, however, because English speakers understand it and use it.
- "Dude, dou really think I can't do edits using proxy server?"; look, if you do that, your edits will get reverted and the article will be locked. You personally won't have achieved what you want and furthermore nobody else interested in the city will be able edit the article. Please don't go down that route and stop other people from editing the article. Knepflerle (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, Rkononenko, I lived in Ukraine from 2007-2008 and my wife is from Dnipropetrovsk, so I understand the linguistic situation in Ukraine very well. Kharkiv, like Dnipro and Donetsk and other eastern cities, is a primarily Russian-speaking city. They know Ukrainian because they are taught in school, many know and use Surzhyk, and some are native Ukrainian speakers. Official signage is in Ukrainian, but Russian signage is quite common for non-official purposes. As far as the English Wikipedia goes, the title of the article is Kharkiv, in Ukrainian, because the the Ukrainian and Russian versions are about equally found in English texts (unlike "Kiev", for example, which is still overwhelmingly the most common English spelling). But within the article, the Russian variant is absolutely relevant because it is still commonly found. (Taivo (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC))
- @Knepflerle. Now you don't understand what I'm trying to say. Of course you don't call Moscow or Prague, Maskva or Praha in English. But at the same time proper nouns are not translated( since you are a German, I'll give you an easy example: Sweinesteiger is not called Pigrider in Englsih). My edits included changing names of famous Kharkiv citizens(proper nouns) to their Ukrainian counterparts, as well as eliminating dozens of other minor Russian'isms(also proper nouns ones). With his reverts, Taivo didn't just add alternative Kharkov in the first paragraph, he aslo deleted all of those proper nouns changes.Rkononenko (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to change things in the article to Ukrainian spellings, especially where the wikilink points to an article with a Ukrainian title, I don't object. But you are eliminating the Russian version of the name against consensus. In your zeal to respell, don't eliminate the common Russian forms that English readers will know these things by. (Taivo (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC))
- @Taivo I don't see how my edit is against consensus. Please provide proof that there is a consensus that Russian(not Belorussian, Greek or German) spelling should also be included?Rkononenko (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- There is a consensus that English spellings be used on the English wikipedia - be they of Russian, Belarusian, Greek, German or Ukrainian origin. If you can demonstrate that the current spellings are less used in English than the spellings you propose, then you can change them. But you have to demonstrate that first. Knepflerle (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- But you are contradicting yourself. You're saying that There is a consensus that English spellings be used on the English wikipedia, but at the same time saying that we should add Russian version of spelling Kharkiv to the first paragraph( and not Romanian, Hungarian or any other language also used by minorities in Ukraine) even though Kharkiv is the correct English spelling( as confirmed by Britannica, verify) of the city.Rkononenko (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- There is a consensus that English spellings be used on the English wikipedia - be they of Russian, Belarusian, Greek, German or Ukrainian origin. If you can demonstrate that the current spellings are less used in English than the spellings you propose, then you can change them. But you have to demonstrate that first. Knepflerle (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- @Taivo I don't see how my edit is against consensus. Please provide proof that there is a consensus that Russian(not Belorussian, Greek or German) spelling should also be included?Rkononenko (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to change things in the article to Ukrainian spellings, especially where the wikilink points to an article with a Ukrainian title, I don't object. But you are eliminating the Russian version of the name against consensus. In your zeal to respell, don't eliminate the common Russian forms that English readers will know these things by. (Taivo (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC))
- @Knepflerle. Now you don't understand what I'm trying to say. Of course you don't call Moscow or Prague, Maskva or Praha in English. But at the same time proper nouns are not translated( since you are a German, I'll give you an easy example: Sweinesteiger is not called Pigrider in Englsih). My edits included changing names of famous Kharkiv citizens(proper nouns) to their Ukrainian counterparts, as well as eliminating dozens of other minor Russian'isms(also proper nouns ones). With his reverts, Taivo didn't just add alternative Kharkov in the first paragraph, he aslo deleted all of those proper nouns changes.Rkononenko (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The problem is you're eliminating them "because they are Russisms"; on English wikipedia you should eliminate them if they are "not Anglicisms". There's a big difference; for historical reasons a lot of Russisms have become Anglicisms. Just because a term referring to Ukraine entered into English through Russian does not mean it is not the correct English term, just as English has French-origin terms for proper nouns in Austria and German-origin terms for proper nouns in the Czech Republic. You need to look at English-language sources and check which spelling is used: sometimes it will be the Russian, sometimes the Ukrainian. I'd suggest making a list of the changes you want to make here; we can have a quick check of the sources and correct the ones which are not Anglicisms. But there is no excuse or need for removing the reference to the spelling Kharkov in the lead; it's mandated by our policy. Knepflerle (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Rkononenko, you are of the mistaken impression that there is a "correct" spelling of placenames in English. There are only "common" spellings in English. The Rada cannot dictate what a correct English spelling is. They can only request that the U.S. government use one spelling or another. English spellings are determined solely by English usage. Encyclopedia Britannica is only one place where spellings can be found. It is by no means the only place and it enjoys no official status in the English-speaking world. Read any history of World War II and it will only talk about the Battles of Kharkov. Look at any atlas and it will usually list "Kharkov" right alongside "Kharkiv" as alternate names of the city. When I was going to Rivne, I was finding virtually nothing about it in my atlases and on-line until someone told me to look under "Rovno"--that's where it all was. So for Ukrainian cities, it is important to list the Russian name as an alternate, especially in eastern Ukraine. English speakers use the Russian names all the time. As far as the census is concerned, people in Ukraine don't always know what language they are speaking and recognize both since linguistically they are not really different languages, but dialects of a single language. People switch from Russian to Ukrainian based on convenience and my Russian-speaking wife had no problem living in Ukrainian-speaking Rivne. But even if only half of the people of Kharkiv speak Russian, that still means that the Russian variant of the name in the article is quite appropriate. You must also pay attention to the titles used in the articles that you want to link to. The article for the oblast is Kharkiv Oblast, the articles for the battles are labelled "Kharkov", and the article for the capital city is Kiev. (Taivo (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC))
- Taivo, so basically, after reading in your comment the argument that linguistically they(ed. Ukrainian and Russian) are not really different languages, but dialects of a single language I realized that probably you are just some unknown professor in some unknown community college in States, who doesn't know what he is talking about and tries to spread that ignoramus-like knowledge of his throughout Wikipedia. Just to let you know, Ukrainian is a separate Slavic language in Eastern Slavic Languages group (Slavic languages), just like English is a seperate language in a Germanic group (Germanic languages). Saying that linguistically they(ed. Ukrainian and Russian) are not really different languages, but dialects of a single language is equivalent to saying linguistically they(ed. Spanish and Italian, or French and English) are not really different languages, but dialects of a single language.
- Concerning your point that you couldn't find Rivne on the internet when you were travelling around Ukraine, the answer is simple: Ukrainian names were not very widespread on the web in the middle 2000's as Russian internet users( who are very much familiar with Ukraine from the USSR times) wrote various things on the web, some of which were related to Ukraine, while Ukrainian internet users were nearly non-existent(considering 46 million population of Ukraine) and that's the only reason for your difficulties. You, Americans, think that if there is not much information on the internet about something( or I should better say if Google doesn't find many matches for it) you automatically think that this something is insignificant/unimportant/nonexistent/misspelled/absent etc. Since Ukrainian internet is basically a baby and is just starting to grow( both in terms of people connected to broadband and people actively doing various things(business, shopping, reading blogs whatever) in it), there is not many things written yet by Ukrainians on the web. But, it'll change soon in the near future, and I hope such useless debates won't possibly occur just a few years from now Rkononenko (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) Actually, it shows that you're not a linguist. The reason these four varieties (including Belorussian and Rusyn) of East Slavic are called "separate languages" is political. They are different, just as British English, Scots, and American English are different, but they are generally mutually intelligible. If you look at linguistic classifications that use the single criterion of mutual intelligibility, the four are always linked into one language (for example, Linguasphere, Voegelin & Voegelin). Like Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian, there are non-linguistic factors that cause people to separate them (spelling, Polish loan words in Ukrainian, Hungarian and Slovak loan words in Rusyn, history, etc.). But considering the ease with which Ukrainians switch from Ukrainian to Surzhyk to Russian and back again, and the fact that I have heard many conversations with one person speaking Russian and the other person speaking Ukrainian, it's clear that only non-linguistic factors treat these as separate languages. But this article is about Kharkiv, not about the linguistic nature of East Slavic. So far you have provided no reason to remove all Russian variants from this article other than you don't like them. (Taivo (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC))
- And I never said that Ukraine or Ukrainian was "insignificant". It just illustrates that the Russian variants of Ukrainian names are still very common in English and should not be removed from Wikipedia just because you don't like them. (Taivo (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC))
- Wow, what a mouthful. Mister Kononenko, instead of chewing on same old stale arguments, insulting your opponents, making far-fetched (albeit unfounded in fact) conclusions about them, and threatening to engage in a full-scale anonymous IP warfare, why don't you first peruse our extensive discussion archives on the subject. Why, Talk:Kiev/naming alone should keep you entertained for hours, if not days! You could compile all of the arguments presented over the course of several years, tally up the counter-arguments, and then give us a list of things which are still unclear to you or which you believe had never been addressed. That would be a fresh turn of events. I fully concur with Taivo's yawn here—as long as you keep recycling same old arguments, you are not going to be taken seriously. Might as well not waste your time and ours. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 1, 2010; 17:13 (UTC)
- @Ezhiki. I laughed so loud when I read your comment, then saw your profile, and lauphed even more - you are a male Russian American. Can't stop lauging, sorry. Ok, it's over now. Oh shit, it's back again, can't stop laughing. Ha-ha-ha This is something new, russian-american. Ha-ha-ha. Rkononenko (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- As to two previous comments, what are you talking about, man? I'm not going to start any anonymous IP adress war, what for? Notice, that everybody who wants to include russian-oriented parts into article(or comments favorably to Taivo edits) is in some way connected to Russia: in case of Taivo, it's his wife from Dnipropetrovsk(probably Russian-speaking), then this russian-american Ezhiki, and finally Knepflerle, I guess a German(I lived in Germany for two years, and made of it an unusual conclusion that Germans are super pro-Russia oriented, even call their kids like Lena, Tania). I'm waiting for someone more impartial to contribute to the article/discussion. Rkononenko (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, the old "you have a black eye, go fix it and then argue philosophy with me" argument ((c) Strugatskiye)... how could I forget. What a witty rejoinder! How logical a reasoning!</sarcasm>
- Anyhoo, are you going to just continue with insulting everyone on this page, or are you going to find a fresh argument not previously discussed for a change? You are very unlikely to attract "someone more impartial" if all you can offer is some moth-eaten misconceptions and a mouthful of insults.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 1, 2010; 19:07 (UTC)
- Wow, what a mouthful. Mister Kononenko, instead of chewing on same old stale arguments, insulting your opponents, making far-fetched (albeit unfounded in fact) conclusions about them, and threatening to engage in a full-scale anonymous IP warfare, why don't you first peruse our extensive discussion archives on the subject. Why, Talk:Kiev/naming alone should keep you entertained for hours, if not days! You could compile all of the arguments presented over the course of several years, tally up the counter-arguments, and then give us a list of things which are still unclear to you or which you believe had never been addressed. That would be a fresh turn of events. I fully concur with Taivo's yawn here—as long as you keep recycling same old arguments, you are not going to be taken seriously. Might as well not waste your time and ours. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 1, 2010; 17:13 (UTC)
- And I never said that Ukraine or Ukrainian was "insignificant". It just illustrates that the Russian variants of Ukrainian names are still very common in English and should not be removed from Wikipedia just because you don't like them. (Taivo (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC))
- (ec) Actually, it shows that you're not a linguist. The reason these four varieties (including Belorussian and Rusyn) of East Slavic are called "separate languages" is political. They are different, just as British English, Scots, and American English are different, but they are generally mutually intelligible. If you look at linguistic classifications that use the single criterion of mutual intelligibility, the four are always linked into one language (for example, Linguasphere, Voegelin & Voegelin). Like Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian, there are non-linguistic factors that cause people to separate them (spelling, Polish loan words in Ukrainian, Hungarian and Slovak loan words in Rusyn, history, etc.). But considering the ease with which Ukrainians switch from Ukrainian to Surzhyk to Russian and back again, and the fact that I have heard many conversations with one person speaking Russian and the other person speaking Ukrainian, it's clear that only non-linguistic factors treat these as separate languages. But this article is about Kharkiv, not about the linguistic nature of East Slavic. So far you have provided no reason to remove all Russian variants from this article other than you don't like them. (Taivo (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC))
- Concerning your point that you couldn't find Rivne on the internet when you were travelling around Ukraine, the answer is simple: Ukrainian names were not very widespread on the web in the middle 2000's as Russian internet users( who are very much familiar with Ukraine from the USSR times) wrote various things on the web, some of which were related to Ukraine, while Ukrainian internet users were nearly non-existent(considering 46 million population of Ukraine) and that's the only reason for your difficulties. You, Americans, think that if there is not much information on the internet about something( or I should better say if Google doesn't find many matches for it) you automatically think that this something is insignificant/unimportant/nonexistent/misspelled/absent etc. Since Ukrainian internet is basically a baby and is just starting to grow( both in terms of people connected to broadband and people actively doing various things(business, shopping, reading blogs whatever) in it), there is not many things written yet by Ukrainians on the web. But, it'll change soon in the near future, and I hope such useless debates won't possibly occur just a few years from now Rkononenko (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Taivo, so basically, after reading in your comment the argument that linguistically they(ed. Ukrainian and Russian) are not really different languages, but dialects of a single language I realized that probably you are just some unknown professor in some unknown community college in States, who doesn't know what he is talking about and tries to spread that ignoramus-like knowledge of his throughout Wikipedia. Just to let you know, Ukrainian is a separate Slavic language in Eastern Slavic Languages group (Slavic languages), just like English is a seperate language in a Germanic group (Germanic languages). Saying that linguistically they(ed. Ukrainian and Russian) are not really different languages, but dialects of a single language is equivalent to saying linguistically they(ed. Spanish and Italian, or French and English) are not really different languages, but dialects of a single language.
(outdent) So, Rkononenko, if all people with the imaginary ties to Russian that you claim we have are excluded from the discussion, then you are also excluded because of your real or imaginary ties to Ukrainian. Fairness all around. (Taivo (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC))
- @Taivo. I actually agree with your last comment, and ideally people with interest (including myself) should restrain from contributing to such articles. True, fairness all around. But it should be two-way deal: if I refrain from editing, you also should. Give it a few weeks, lets see what will others( maybe even some impartial seeking-knowledge-expanding dude) contribute to the article.
- Also, if you want, for instance, to add Russian way of spelling Kharkiv into the first paragraph(claiming that it would benefit knowledge-seeking English speaking users who can stumble upon a Kharkiv article and be smitten by a novelty that it is not Kharkov as they remember from 1974 textbook on WWII they read in their youth years at Harvard), lets make a vote, like the 1 week voting for admins, and lets see what community decides. Rkononenko (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Before you get too excited about a "vote" (which is not the way Wikipedia operates), check out the last Ukrainian/Russian related survey done at Kiev. The question was should Kiev be moved to "Kyiv"? Here are the results. One vote to move, all the rest to keep it at "Kiev". (Taivo (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC))
- And you need to get some perspective, Rkononenko. The "vote" to keep Kiev at Kiev and not move it to "Kyiv" was overwhelming. That was the title of an article at stake. You're asking that we remove the Russian version of the name of a city that carried its Russian name for centuries before the Ukrainian version became official. You're not asking to move the article to another name (it's already at Kharkiv). You're asking to remove one piece of information about the name of a city. That's a ridiculous request and will fail. It's the equivalent of removing the population figure from the city template. It's just part of the body of fact about Kharkiv--it carried a Russian name for centuries and there is still a great deal of English-language literature that carries that Russian name. Take your hatred of Russians elsewhere, it's not appropriate here. If you look at the articles for every other major Ukrainian city, they all carry the Russian name as an English variant. Kharkiv isn't special. (Taivo (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC))
- Before you get too excited about a "vote" (which is not the way Wikipedia operates), check out the last Ukrainian/Russian related survey done at Kiev. The question was should Kiev be moved to "Kyiv"? Here are the results. One vote to move, all the rest to keep it at "Kiev". (Taivo (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC))
My interest is mainly genealogical. I have people who tell me they were (or documents that tell me) were born in Kharkov, Charkov,... (For example, ship-board manifests, tombstones, passports) I need information for my work that clarifies, 1) what the town is called now in English 2) what the town is called in it's official language. 3) what the town was official called at the time of the birth (death,...), 4) who was ruling it at that time. This information is needed to even be able to guess on where official records (for the time) may now be located, to match other databases, and to determine mundane things, like what languages would the records be, or what languages my relatives might have spoken.
The ruling history and names are available for most other significant places. Even at Kyiv there is information about the use of "Lemberg" when under the Austrian Empire. This is exactly the type of information an encyclopedia should have. It's not intended to be of political nature, and really has no political content, unless information revealing non-disputable facts could be political. Mjchonoles (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- You can find information on the language people were speaking if you check the Russian Empire Census from 1897. Although most of the records for this census was destroyed it has survived in certain parts of Ukraine since the local authorities didn't always follow the orders from St Petersburg. The statistics can be found for Kharkov Governorate here [1]. As you can see the majority spoke Ukrainian (Малорусский). If the census records for this region have survived they probably would be located at the archives in Kharkiv [2]. I have myself studied such records from Kiev Governorate and they give detailed information about each household, similar to the American censuses. Närking (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, that is helpful. Though I would need to also know to (hire someone to) translate the records, whether I would need Russian or Ukrainian translators or both. Mjchonoles (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, a native speaker can be a good idea, even though knowledge in reading cyrillic letters (also handwritten ones) can take you a long way. All those records are written in old Russian. There are also Church records that can give you lots of information. Those can be found either in Kharkiv or Kyiv, but I think the Mormons have microfilmed them also. Närking (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- If they have been microfilmed by the LDS church, then they should be available at ancestry.com, I think. (Taivo (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC))
- Well, I'm not so sure about that. But the microfilms can be borrowed from any LDS center. Närking (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- If they have been microfilmed by the LDS church, then they should be available at ancestry.com, I think. (Taivo (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC))
- Yes, I will probably be going to the local LDS center, and I suspect I'll be forwarding it to a Russian speaker. Though of course, Russian (and perhaps Ukrainian) has changed significantly in vocabulary, and somewhat in character set since that time. Thanks Mjchonoles (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, a native speaker can be a good idea, even though knowledge in reading cyrillic letters (also handwritten ones) can take you a long way. All those records are written in old Russian. There are also Church records that can give you lots of information. Those can be found either in Kharkiv or Kyiv, but I think the Mormons have microfilmed them also. Närking (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Don't worry, Mjchonoles. "Kharkov" will remain the first sentence of this article because 1) Rkononenko has no support for removing it and consensus rules in Wikipedia, and 2) Wikipedia policy is to include all important alternate names in the lead sentence of an article. (Taivo (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC))
- Taivo draws a rather strange conclusion from Mjchonoles's comment. How I see it, the Kharkov name can and should be included in the article, but only as a historical name used in times of Russian empire ruling over Ukraine. However, this should be a separate paragraph and in no way in the first paragraph. And Kharkov is not, quoting Taivo, an important alternate name of Kharkiv, it is simply a past name used by Russian-language rulers(and obviously their documentation) in Russian empire.Rkononenko (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Check out Istanbul, Rkononenko. In the first sentence, both "Byzantium" and "Constantinople" are listed. "Byzantium" hasn't been used for centuries, but there it is in the first sentence. "Constantinople" became "Istanbul" long before Kharkov became Kharkiv, but there it is in the first sentence. (Indeed, as "Kharkov" is Russian and "Kharkiv" is Ukrainian, "Istanbul" is just the Turkish form of Greek "ConSTANtinoPLe".) Petty anti-Russian nationalism has no place in Wikipedia, Rkononenko. Start a blog if you need to express yourself in that vein. (Taivo (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC))
- And reading back through the material that you archived, Rkononenko, it's clear why you archived it--there's plenty of evidence there that "Kharkov" is a common English alternate name for Kharkiv. (Taivo (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC))
- Check out Istanbul, Rkononenko. In the first sentence, both "Byzantium" and "Constantinople" are listed. "Byzantium" hasn't been used for centuries, but there it is in the first sentence. "Constantinople" became "Istanbul" long before Kharkov became Kharkiv, but there it is in the first sentence. (Indeed, as "Kharkov" is Russian and "Kharkiv" is Ukrainian, "Istanbul" is just the Turkish form of Greek "ConSTANtinoPLe".) Petty anti-Russian nationalism has no place in Wikipedia, Rkononenko. Start a blog if you need to express yourself in that vein. (Taivo (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC))
- Taivo draws a rather strange conclusion from Mjchonoles's comment. How I see it, the Kharkov name can and should be included in the article, but only as a historical name used in times of Russian empire ruling over Ukraine. However, this should be a separate paragraph and in no way in the first paragraph. And Kharkov is not, quoting Taivo, an important alternate name of Kharkiv, it is simply a past name used by Russian-language rulers(and obviously their documentation) in Russian empire.Rkononenko (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, Rkononenko, my main argument for including "Kharkov" could be satisfied by placing the name in other than the first sentence. And I could live with that conclusion. However, my general preference appears to match the general approach found on Wikipedia, which is include important names in the header. For example, many Ukrainian towns with previously high proportions of Jewish or Polish speakers, include names of the towns in those languages. Mjchonoles (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- As, for example, at Rivne. (Taivo (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC))
- Yes, Rkononenko, my main argument for including "Kharkov" could be satisfied by placing the name in other than the first sentence. And I could live with that conclusion. However, my general preference appears to match the general approach found on Wikipedia, which is include important names in the header. For example, many Ukrainian towns with previously high proportions of Jewish or Polish speakers, include names of the towns in those languages. Mjchonoles (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is English language Wikipedia, not Galician language. Kharkiv is a transliteration of the word Galicians use for Kharkov. Surely English language Wikipedia should use normal English names for places. The Galicians have a political agenda and wish to impose their names for places on the rest of us. However it is against Wikipedia policy to use Wikipedia for this political purpose. WP:NOTADVOCATE
- These comments are incredibly inflammatory and indicative of your own anti-western political agenda, no? It's official use, not something so-called Galicians made up and started spreading to Wikipedia. --Львівське (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Eastern and Central Ukraine have a different history than Western Ukraine. Whereas Western Ukraine was once part of the Kievan Rus' state, Eastern and Central Ukraine were inhabited by nomads. Large-scale settlement started in the 18th and 19th Centuries. In the cities the largest group of settlers were generally ethnic Russians - this was the case in Kharkov: according to the 1897 census there were about 110,000 Russian speakers, 45,000 Ukrainian speakers, 10,000 Yiddish speakers, and about 9,000 others. Consequently the historical native languages are Russian and to a lesser extent Ukrainian. Some cities like Yekaterinoslav (now called Dnepropetrovsk) had a greater proportion of Jews, so that Ukrainian was the the third most common language (see 1897 census). Other census returns show that there must have been some cities in the Kharkov Governate where Russian-speakers were a minority. And census returns from the Kharkov Governate as a whole show a majority of Ukrainian speakers, which implies that the rural population must have been Ukrainian speaking. The history of the settlement of this part of Ukraine was complicated - indeed more complicated than I had thought. All this should suggest that intollerence of Russian-language names for cities in Eastern and Central Ukraine is inappropriate.
- In modern Ukraine, the dead hand of the state puts Galician spellings for place names on highways. So it is useful to also have the Galician names for places on Wikipedia.
--Toddy1 (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC) amended --Toddy1 (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I, an ethnic Ukrainian whose origins are from the Poltava region in Eastern Ukraine, and who has a doctorate from the Kharkiv State Academy of Culture find the above statement and its implications offensive. --Bandurist (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please study some Ukrainian history before you make any further comments. Närking (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes you are right - I am familiar with the history of Dnepropetrovsk, and had assumed that it was just the same elsewhere. I was wrong. Jews were only the third largest ethnic group in Kharkov. However my errors of detail do not affect my basic premise that the majority of settlers in cities like Kharkov were Russian speaking.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- You can also start with reading the article about Sloboda Ukraine. I'm not against having the Russian name in the article but your view on Ukrainian history is very corrupted. Närking (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
KHARKIV and onley Kharkiv should be used. Not Russian Kharkov. --68.36.49.223 (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- NO ONE in Kharkov use kharkIv!!! No any historical documents that prove us that Kharkov should be named as kharkIv. KHARKOV and only Kharkov should be used. Not the invented by bolsheviks name kharKiv 91.194.56.131 (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- ...invented by Bolsheviks? --Львівське (говорити) 14:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- NO ONE in Kharkov use kharkIv!!! No any historical documents that prove us that Kharkov should be named as kharkIv. KHARKOV and only Kharkov should be used. Not the invented by bolsheviks name kharKiv 91.194.56.131 (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Kharkov in Contemporary English
Before you continue to make a fool of yourself, Rkononenko, I'll give you some facts. Below is the evidence that "Kharkov" is still used in English to refer to Kharkiv:
- New York Times, last twelve months: 7 times ("Kharkiv" once)
- Washington Post, last twelve months: once ("Kharkiv" once) (both of these refer to the same article, probably in a sentence like "Kharkiv, formerly known as Kharkov" or "Kharkov, now called Kharkiv")
- The Guardian, last few years: 28 times, most recent September 2009 ("Kharkiv" 58 times)
- Google Books, books published only in 2009 and 2010 in English that contain "Kharkov", but not "Kharkiv": 529 (containing "Kharkiv" but not "Kharkov" 94)
So, as you can clearly see, "Kharkov" is still very much alive and well in the English language. It is not, as you say, strictly a historical name from the "Russian empire". It is currently used very often in English. So its place in the first sentence is not only appropriate, but required because of its use in today's English language. You can continue to waste our time with your senseless crusade to rob Kharkiv of its other name or you can find another place in Wikipedia to contribute productively. (Taivo (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC))
- It should read: Kharkiv (Ukrainian: Харків (insert IPA); [Харьков, Khar'kov] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help)) just like the Lviv article handles it.--Львівське (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, it should read: Kharkiv or Kharkov just like the Dnipropetrovsk article handles it and as the current text stands. Since Kharkiv is another eastern city like Dnipro, the Russian form is much more widely known and used (unlike the far western city Lviv). (Taivo (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC))
- I could understanding making an "or statement" if the two names were fundamentally different yet both in use, like a Burma/Myanmar, but to put 2 names that are fundamentally so similar save for an I or an E is just trivial and redundant.--Львівське (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- I also bring up the Ivory Coast example, where official use trumps popular vernacular. --Львівське (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, it's not "trivial". It's the difference between two spellings, one of which is official in Ukraine and the other of which is more common in the English-speaking world. They are therefore of equal footing as far as Wikipedia is concerned. And, if you actually look at the Ivory Coast example, you'll see that "Ivory Coast" is in bold right there at the top of the article. It's not a good example since the placement is awkward. How much simpler to just write "Kharkiv" or "Kharkov" as is done at Dnipropetrovsk. Simple, easy to read. Anti-Russian sentiment from Ukrainian nationalists is not appropriate in Wikipedia. We need to be more user-friendly, not less just because someone is offended by Russian variants being used in English. (Taivo (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC))
- I also bring up the Ivory Coast example, where official use trumps popular vernacular. --Львівське (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- ...boy, you sure are an angry individual. It's amazing that you can bring up "anti-russian nationalism" out of nowhere, what's your angle here? It's a shame that "common use" trumps "common sense" in your interpretation of this debate.--Львівське (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not angry. There are editors here who insist on mindlessly removing all traces of Russian from any article on Ukraine. I lumped you into that group when you suggested taking the Russian name of a city where nearly half of the population speaks Russian as their first language and which is more widely known in English by its Russian name and placing it in the parenthetical comments. My apologies if you're not anti-Russian, but your comments seemed to lean in that direction. (Taivo (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC))
- Common use here is common sense. If a name is X in English, then that is what needs to be referenced in the English Wikipedia, not what the locals call it in a different language. In Ukraine, the most commonly known names in English are the Russian ones. So "common sense" is to use the Russian names for the articles. However, for most names in Ukraine, the city is so rarely referred to that it doesn't really matter one way or the other for the article title (except for Kiev, Odessa, Chernobyl, and Crimea). However, the Russian names are common enough in English to warrant highlighting in the first sentence so that English speakers can find the place they're actually looking for. Common sense is to include the Russian names prominently in the first sentence. (Taivo (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC))
- I'm not angry. There are editors here who insist on mindlessly removing all traces of Russian from any article on Ukraine. I lumped you into that group when you suggested taking the Russian name of a city where nearly half of the population speaks Russian as their first language and which is more widely known in English by its Russian name and placing it in the parenthetical comments. My apologies if you're not anti-Russian, but your comments seemed to lean in that direction. (Taivo (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC))
- ...boy, you sure are an angry individual. It's amazing that you can bring up "anti-russian nationalism" out of nowhere, what's your angle here? It's a shame that "common use" trumps "common sense" in your interpretation of this debate.--Львівське (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've seen common use trumped vs. official/local use on the ice hockey project. Example, there's a guy who played for over a decade in the NHL, Sandis Ozolinsh; editors have successfully made it Sandis Ozoliņš now, despite NEVER being spelled that way in ANY English source. Even his team's website, which is from Latvia, has no diacritics on the english version of the website....yet it's been impossible for those against diacritics / for common use to get this overruled (this goes for pretty much every czech, slovak, latvian, swedish, etc. player who's name has diacritics). --Львівське (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well in this case, Kharkov is a name locals may call it, but popular use in english is an archaism from soviet-era writing. This is just my opinion on the matter, but I feel parenthesis should suffice given that the variant has no official standing and isn't so vastly different that it need be pointed out--Львівське (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- "Official standing" in Ukraine is irrelevant in the English Wikipedia. It doesn't matter whether the most common English spelling is an "archaism" or not. Common English usage is the only measurement for use in Wikipedia. If most users of Wikipedia are looking for "Kharkov", then we need to present it to them in bold right in the first sentence so they know they've reached the right place when they arrive at "Kharkiv". It's all about user-friendliness. (Taivo (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC))
- So I will assume that you will be happy to place "Kyiv" and "Odesa" unbolded within parentheses as well since they are "not so vastly different that it need be pointed out". (Taivo (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC))
- "Official standing" in Ukraine is irrelevant in the English Wikipedia. It doesn't matter whether the most common English spelling is an "archaism" or not. Common English usage is the only measurement for use in Wikipedia. If most users of Wikipedia are looking for "Kharkov", then we need to present it to them in bold right in the first sentence so they know they've reached the right place when they arrive at "Kharkiv". It's all about user-friendliness. (Taivo (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC))
- Well in this case, Kharkov is a name locals may call it, but popular use in english is an archaism from soviet-era writing. This is just my opinion on the matter, but I feel parenthesis should suffice given that the variant has no official standing and isn't so vastly different that it need be pointed out--Львівське (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think I just like parenthesis vs. "or" more than anything, now that I've thought it over. I'm actually leaning more toward the Kharkov side of the argument now as well, lol --Львівське (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- And, if you want to insist on only one bolded name, then we should bold "Kiev" at Kiev and leave "Kyiv" as just another of the unbolded variants in parentheses. And isn't the difference between "Odessa" and "Odesa" at Odessa just "trivial" as well? So since the titles of those two articles are "Kiev" and "Odessa", then we can relegate the Ukrainian variants according to your criterion of "triviality" to the unbolded parenthetical comments. After all, "Kiev" and "Kyiv" are pronounced identically to the untrained American ear, as are "Odessa" and "Odesa". (Taivo (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC))
- Well, I prefer Odessa, actually. And I preferred to use Kiev as well until recently as I've seen it come more into popular use by Kievan institutions like the sports teams or the Kyiv Post, for example, so I've made the switch.
- I personally always use "Kyiv" outside Wikipedia as well. But within Wikipedia, "Kiev" is the most common English spelling and therefore is the required spelling in articles. (And, I agree, "Odesa" just looks funny. The problem is that we have several U.S. cities spelled "Odessa" and that will forever color the American spelling of Ukraine's "Odessa".) (Taivo (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC))
- Just as Prague will never be Praha and Moscow will never be Moskva in English, not everything has to be a direct transliteration --Львівське (говорити) 14:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- I personally always use "Kyiv" outside Wikipedia as well. But within Wikipedia, "Kiev" is the most common English spelling and therefore is the required spelling in articles. (And, I agree, "Odesa" just looks funny. The problem is that we have several U.S. cities spelled "Odessa" and that will forever color the American spelling of Ukraine's "Odessa".) (Taivo (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC))
- Well, I prefer Odessa, actually. And I preferred to use Kiev as well until recently as I've seen it come more into popular use by Kievan institutions like the sports teams or the Kyiv Post, for example, so I've made the switch.
Odesa looks funny to him. Guess what, Nikolayev, Kharkov, Zaporozhye looks funny to me --68.38.122.179 (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Where is Kharkiv?
On a completely different topic. Can anyone give me an "official" lat/lon for Kharkiv (that is, without referencing the un-supported lat/lon in wikipedia). I found several different locations given and wondered if there was some official location. Mjchonoles (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Historical populations
The references used for the historical population numbers were modified by Rkononenko on 30 March 2010 (diff). Given the fact that he had previously altered the title of an English-language book (at Amazon.com), I think that a review of that edit's appropriateness by someone able to read Russian & Ukrainian would be in order. - Best, Ev (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I have restored the 24 March population references - the book titles were what they were. Making out that the books had different titles is a lie.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Census data
It may be misleading to quote census data for the Kharkov region in this article. Historically, the ethic composition of the Kharkov region and the city of Kharkov have been different.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Kharkovi
Can someone explain to me the reason (be it conjugation or other) that in Ukrainian Харкові is used? source --Львівське (говорити) 02:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- This is a declination, Prepositional case (in Kharkiv)--Ymblanter (talk) 08:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Kharkiv" (I'm going to transliterate) is the form in nominative case (subject of sentence or in isolation). When case suffixes are added (accusative, genitive, etc.), then the stem changes to "Kharkov-", as in Kharkovi, Kharkova, etc. See the title of this article from the official web site of the Kharkiv city council: [3]. The same thing happens to "Lviv" when it's declined--as, for example, in the title of this article from the city's official web site: [4]. There are many stems in Ukrainian that vary between -i- in the nominative and -o- in other cases: nich 'night', nochi (genitive/dative), nochi (plural), etc. Other stems also change the vowel: pich 'thing', pechi (genitive/dative/locative), pechi (plural). Vowel changes like this are not at all uncommon in language: man/men, ride/rode, etc. --Taivo (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
The Great Patriotic War
On 22 June 1941, the Soviet Union was invaded by Nazi Germany. The Hitler government was the internationally recognised government of the time. In the Anglo-Soviet side's propaganda, the enemy were sometimes described as Nazis. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; not a work of propaganda. The enemy were the Germans and their allies.
It is also worth remembering that only a minority of German soldiers were members of the Nazi Party (NSDAP). Germans of all political persuasions gladly fought for their country during the Great Patriotic War.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but Nazi is short for specifically Nazi Germany, so it's akin to saying "Soviets" instead of Soviet Union or Russia. --Львівське (говорити) 22:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Except of course that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Респу́блик) was the official name of the country - or Soviet Union for short. Whereas the official name for Germany was Deutsches Reich (German Empire) until 1943 and then Großdeutsches Reich (Greater German Empire) until 1945.
- Calling German soldiers "nazis" is akin to calling Soviet soldiers "commies".--Toddy1 (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- I guess. Nazi Germany is the common use term for the state, as was Soviet Russia at one point in time; Nazis, Soviets, Krauts, Commies, Potato, Po'tat'o. It's all context.--Львівське (говорити) 07:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Calling German soldiers "nazis" is akin to calling Soviet soldiers "commies".--Toddy1 (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
2emigrants and Galicians
uk: Шановні емігранти, які покинули Україну, так як забажали ситого життя замість того, щоб відбудовувати злиденну, після розвалу Радянського Союзу, Україну! Шановні галичани, націоналісти та інший...як би пом’якше...люд, який висне на сторінці про наш Харків! Звертаюся до вас з питанням: якого діда ви тут робите на сторінці нашого Харкова?!
en: Dear emigrants who left Ukraine for sweet life, instead of rebuilding the poor country after the collapse of the Soviet Union! Dear Galician nationalists and other... to put it mildly... folk, who hang out on the page about our Kharkov! I am writing to you with the little question: what the hell are you doing here on page of our Kharkov?! Kharkovite (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you wish the page to be renamed, this will be controversial. You will need to show evidence that the most common name in English is Kharkov. I suggest that you take the advice given in Wikipedia:Requested moves.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't realize only people from Kharkiv could discuss and work on its wikipedia articles. My bad. --Львівське (говорити) 22:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- question, but do Ukrainian speakers, half the population, call it Kharkiv? Or do they call it Kharkov locally? And if so, why not hold a plebiscite and have the Ukrainian language spelling changed?--Львівське (говорити) 02:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- My question was not concern the problem of transliteration from the modern Ukrainian name of Kharkov to English, it is a question that concerns insinuations and biased policy of editing the article by people who have nothing common with Kharkov. So please don't make it as sub-topic Kharkovite (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Toddy1, thank you. First of all I see this: [5] But, this is another task.
- The modern Ukrainian name of Kharkiv to English is Kharkiv. --Львівське (говорити) 14:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- No. Kharkiv is the spelling that foreigners (from a far-away continent of which we care little) insist on forcing on people. Oh and the dead hand of the state uses that spelling too some of the time.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- The continent where all the English speaking people are? Are they forcing Kharkivians to speak in Ukrainian and write in English? Is there a global conspiracy to keep the suffix 'ov' down? So many unanswered questions...--Львівське (говорити) 22:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- No. Kharkiv is the spelling that foreigners (from a far-away continent of which we care little) insist on forcing on people. Oh and the dead hand of the state uses that spelling too some of the time.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- The modern Ukrainian name of Kharkiv to English is Kharkiv. --Львівське (говорити) 14:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Russian variants do no require citation
Standard Wikipedia practice in eastern Ukrainian, where as many as half of the population speaks Russian natively, is to include the Russian variants on placenames. No citation is necessary any more than a citation is necessary for placing the Ukrainian variant in placenames where the majority of the community speaks Russian as their first language (as in the Crimea). The citation tags were nothing more than WP:POINTy editing by an anonymous editor who is pushing an anti-Russian Ukrainian POV. Citations are not necessary for these things. --Taivo (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Is there a policy on this somewhere?--Львівське (говорити) 02:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure other than the policy that common sense should prevail over requiring a citation for every single fact in Wikipedia. Might as well ask for a citation for the Ukrainian form as well. These are placenames, not things such as the amount of steel produced in 2008. If one requires a citation for a placename, then Wikipedia is a failure. --Taivo (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- I did ask a question at WP:CITE, however, to see if there has ever been a discussion on when requiring citations is ridiculous. --Taivo (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- But if what you're really asking is whether there is a Wikipedia policy on citing Russian variants in eastern Ukraine, there isn't a written policy, but this is the consensus that has been worked out on multiple pages throughout the articles on places in eastern Ukraine (Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kharkiv, etc.). --Taivo (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- I did ask a question at WP:CITE, however, to see if there has ever been a discussion on when requiring citations is ridiculous. --Taivo (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure other than the policy that common sense should prevail over requiring a citation for every single fact in Wikipedia. Might as well ask for a citation for the Ukrainian form as well. These are placenames, not things such as the amount of steel produced in 2008. If one requires a citation for a placename, then Wikipedia is a failure. --Taivo (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Who created this policy, Russians themselves? :) There is NO any policy. Russian made it out. All the Russian translation should be taken off Ukrainian related Wikipedia --68.38.122.179 (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Dear users of Wikipedia, let's summarize your discussion. None of the supporters of Russian toponyms not put forward any argument in their favor. Only emotions and thoughts led nationalism and imperealizm. Therefore propose to delete the Russian place names.Vovkulaka rtm (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- To start with, you should cite a policy which prohibits citing Russian names. What we need to do is to bring the names the city in known in English sources under. Kharkiv is undoubtedly also known as Kharkiv, and hence this name should be in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- You do realize that a vast body of literature and academic works refers to the places in Ukraine solely by their Russian names, especially in historical contexts? Hard as it may be for you to believe, but an average Western reader would not necessarily know that "Kharkiv" and "Kharkov" refer to the same place. Including Russian names in the lede helps clarify this point, makes cross-referencing historical literature and Wikipedia articles possible, and generally improves our readers' experience. Call it the heritage of Russian imperialism or whatever, but the fact remains that including Russian names in these articles is better for readers than not including them. This said, I don't see why names in Russian proper should be featured so prominently; surely having transliterated Russian names should be sufficient? At least let's tuck Russian proper (and Russian pronunciation) into a footnote.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 6, 2013; 19:45 (UTC)
- Ezhiki, your very comment about how the average English or American reader recognizes "Kharkov" before "Kharkiv" argues against reducing the size or prominence of "Kharkov" in the infobox and in the first sentence. It is precisely because "Kharkov" is more common in English literature that we include it so prominently--so that English and American readers can see it right away and know that they are in the right place. It should not, in any way, be relegated to a footnote. It should be readily visible. --Taivo (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Taivo, I am not proposing to relegate "Kharkov" to a footnote—that would be contrary to the point I was trying to make :) What I am proposing to relegate is the "(Russian: Ха́рьков; IPA: [ˈxarʲkəf])" part, which I don't believe helps Western readers all that much.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 6, 2013; 20:06 (UTC)
- It is only because of all the emigre nationalist editors that Wikipedia is forced to use the Kharkiv spelling. The Kharkov spelling is the normal English spelling.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, my apologies, Ezhiki. I misunderstood. --Taivo (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- It is only because of all the emigre nationalist editors that Wikipedia is forced to use the Kharkiv spelling. The Kharkov spelling is the normal English spelling.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Taivo, I am not proposing to relegate "Kharkov" to a footnote—that would be contrary to the point I was trying to make :) What I am proposing to relegate is the "(Russian: Ха́рьков; IPA: [ˈxarʲkəf])" part, which I don't believe helps Western readers all that much.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 6, 2013; 20:06 (UTC)
- Ezhiki, your very comment about how the average English or American reader recognizes "Kharkov" before "Kharkiv" argues against reducing the size or prominence of "Kharkov" in the infobox and in the first sentence. It is precisely because "Kharkov" is more common in English literature that we include it so prominently--so that English and American readers can see it right away and know that they are in the right place. It should not, in any way, be relegated to a footnote. It should be readily visible. --Taivo (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
uk: Шановні російські націоналісти та інший...як би пом’якше...люд, який висне на сторінці про наш Харків! Звертаюся до вас з питанням: якого діда ви тут робите на сторінці нашого Харкова?!--68.38.122.179 (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
en: Dear Russian nationalists and other... to put it mildly... Russian folks, who hang out on the page about our Kharkiv! I am writing to you with the little question: what the hell are you doing here on page of our Kharkiv?!--68.38.122.179 (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- But you are from New Jersey, which is in a far away continent. It is misleading for you to use "our".--Toddy1 (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- New Jersey, indeed: [6]. It's amazing how nationalistic expatriots can be. If they loved Kharkiv so much, why did they leave? And if they were forced to leave, why don't they go back? --Taivo (talk) 11:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Lists of notable residents
Many of the notable residents only lived in Kharkov for part of their lives. Many were not born there.
As for Landau: He was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1962 for work he did in Moscow in 1939. Work he started in Kharkov on his physics text book is considered notable, as was his work at the Kharkov Polytechnical Institute.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- For someone like Landau I think that's a notable fact to be included in the article - in the Science and Education section, rather than the ambiguous list format it's currently in. The Notable list itself is, as you described, undefined. I'd be for nuking it, it certainly needs a good culling at the least. --Львівське (говорити) 01:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I do not see what the section of Nobel and Field prize winners is good for. All three people are in the Notable section as well. Landau and Kuznets, indeed, got their prizes for the work they have done outside Kharkiv. Drinfeld should be mentioned explicitly in the education section. I think this short section should be abolished.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Now I see that Drinfeld studied and worked in Moscow as well (I should have known better, seeing him there in the 1980s on a regular basis). This reinforces my point.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
KHARKOV If the language of the overwhelming majority of the population in Kharkov is Russian speaking, then the name should be Kharkov. That is evident.--193.152.160.94 (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- This is English wikipedia, not Kharkov wikipedia. --Львівське (говорити) 04:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: article not moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Kharkiv → Kharkov – WP:COMMONNAME. The Russian version is more commonly used for other Ukrainian cities as well, including Kiev (as opposed to Kyiv), Odessa (Odesa), etc. Երևանցի talk 18:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Google Ngram "Kharkov" vs Kharkiv from 1950 to 2008 in English language sources Google Books:
- Oppose - seeing as President Putin yesterday announced he doesn't want Kharkiv it might as well remain at the Ukrainian name which has been gaining rapidly in that ngram. Having it in Ukrainian is a convenient visible reminder that it's in Ukraine for readers like me who have trouble remembering where the border runs. And one redirects to the other anyway, so this really isn't the best time to move it. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, because ongoing political speculations are clearly significant to outweigh COMMONNAME. --Երևանցի talk 20:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Even stronger oppose - User:Yerevantsi you may wish to adjust the way you speak to other editors if you expect to persuade a move to a Russian name at this time. in any case, Lonely Planet is typical of guidebooks today. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, because ongoing political speculations are clearly significant to outweigh COMMONNAME. --Երևանցի talk 20:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. BGN/PCGN lists "Kharkiv" as an "approved" variant in the context of Ukraine, and that's good enough for me. The majority of "Kharkov" spellings in the results are pre-independence (i.e., used in the Russian/Soviet contexts). For Kiev/Odessa, the BGN/PCGN lists the "Kiev" spelling as "conventional" and the "Odessa" spelling as "approved", so there is no contradiction on that front either.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 19, 2014; 13:17 (UTC)
- I'm trying to understand what BGN/PCGN is. And explain how it's relevant to COMMONNAME. --Երևանցի talk 20:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, should have linked to it. BGN is the United States Board on Geographic Names and PCGN is its British counterpart. Together these two agencies develop, among other things, the romanization systems for various non-Latin alphabet-based languages and maintain a toponymic database. The recommendations by these two bodies are widely followed in the Anglophone world (i.e., it's not only good for the US and the UK); in particular, the majority of the published maps utilize their system. There is also a very good correspondence between the toponyms marked as "conventional " in their database and Wikipedia's own common name practices (e.g., both Moscow and Kiev fall under this category). For toponyms deemed not to have a conventional name, an "approved" variant is established, which is normally the outcome of the application of the romanization system for the language from which the toponym comes from. "Kharkiv" is one such toponym, although they also include "Kharkov" as "approved" for use in the context of Russia (and presumably the Soviet Union). Hope this helps. Since this article is about a Ukrainian city, and since the majority of the sources deal with Russian/Soviet contexts, the "Kharkiv" spelling is a better choice.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 19, 2014; 20:25 (UTC)
- I'm trying to understand what BGN/PCGN is. And explain how it's relevant to COMMONNAME. --Երևանցի talk 20:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Now is not an appropriate time for this. At the moment there is a great deal of intimidation and posturing. Any discussion may also be invaded by huge numbers of sock and meat puppets of the Nashi and the Svoboda.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ezhiki. Also Toddy1 said, this politically sensitive moment is exactly the wrong time to debate this issue. If this has been stable for several years, now is not the time to discuss it. No such user (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. Unlike Kiev and Odessa, I'm not sure that "Kharkov" rises to the level of being a true English exonym. Most English-language news outlets (except RT) have been using "Kharkiv" in recent weeks. Of course, the issue can be revisited after a Russian invasion. — AjaxSmack 01:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose. I'm seriously getting tired of these stupid move requests every couple months or so. I would like to propose a ban on requests to move this article. --BoguSlav 04:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Please could people also comment on: Talk:Mykolaiv#Request move and this edit.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Orphaned references in Kharkiv
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Kharkiv's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "OSCE622":
- From 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine: "Latest from the Special Monitoring Mission in Ukraine based on information received until 22 June 2014" (Press release). Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. 23 June 2014. Retrieved 23 June 2014.
- From War in Donbass: "Latest from the Special Monitoring Mission in Ukraine based on information received until 22 June 2014" (Press release). Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. 23 June 2014. Archived from the original on 25 June 2014. Retrieved 23 June 2014.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Fixed Archived version used. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Kharkiv or Kharkov
The first sentence should be "Kharkiv or Kharkov..." just like the other cities of Ukraine are listed--Kiev, Dnipropetrovsk, Rivne, Odessa, Uzhhorod, etc. It is plain, simple and clear. It doesn't matter whether someone can read Cyrillic or not, this is the English Wikipedia and both names are found in the English literature. Indeed, the evidence indicates that "Kharkov" is more commonly found in English than Kharkiv. (Taivo (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC))
- The way it is currently written is bad English and convoluted. It should mirror good city articles like Quebec City, Turin, Prague, etc where the alt in is brackets, and like the first example where its in common use as well, bolded.
- --Львівське (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, it's not "bad English" and "good city article" is only your opinion. I believe that these Ukrainian articles handle the situation better. But, I am going to pat you on the back for your honesty and consistency in putting "Kyiv" inside parentheses at Kiev. I won't revert there for now and will wait to see if the nationalists go ape about it. But, yes, it is about "centimeters" because the most common name for Kharkiv in English is "Kharkov" and the closer we can put that name to the front of the sentence, the better so that the average English speaker won't be confused for a moment about whether or not s/he has reached the right article. And in all those other city articles you cited, the most common English name is also the title of the article, so that there really isn't any confusion since most English speakers aren't looking for Praha or Torino. Here, the most common English name is not the title of the article, so it's critical to get that most-common name very, very close to the front. (Taivo (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC))
- Then get consensus to change the name to Kharkov then if that's your beef, this is about form/style, and yes, saying "Boston or Bastan is a city in the United States" is a awkward. --Львівське (talk) 01:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- The article title has been discussed before and that's a different can of worms. No, having "Kharkiv or Kharkov" is not awkward, it's perfectly clear and absolutely informative to someone looking for the name that isn't the article's title (which will be most of the people looking here). (Taivo (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC))
- OR works if a city has 2 different names, like say, Derry, but in this case it's the same name, just transliterated from two languages, one of which isn't even official. It's silly as it is right now, and doesn't read proper. And there you go bringing up "the nationalists" again, whats your deal, hate Ukrainians or something?--Львівське (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- The article title has been discussed before and that's a different can of worms. No, having "Kharkiv or Kharkov" is not awkward, it's perfectly clear and absolutely informative to someone looking for the name that isn't the article's title (which will be most of the people looking here). (Taivo (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC))
- Then get consensus to change the name to Kharkov then if that's your beef, this is about form/style, and yes, saying "Boston or Bastan is a city in the United States" is a awkward. --Львівське (talk) 01:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, it's not "bad English" and "good city article" is only your opinion. I believe that these Ukrainian articles handle the situation better. But, I am going to pat you on the back for your honesty and consistency in putting "Kyiv" inside parentheses at Kiev. I won't revert there for now and will wait to see if the nationalists go ape about it. But, yes, it is about "centimeters" because the most common name for Kharkiv in English is "Kharkov" and the closer we can put that name to the front of the sentence, the better so that the average English speaker won't be confused for a moment about whether or not s/he has reached the right article. And in all those other city articles you cited, the most common English name is also the title of the article, so that there really isn't any confusion since most English speakers aren't looking for Praha or Torino. Here, the most common English name is not the title of the article, so it's critical to get that most-common name very, very close to the front. (Taivo (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC))
Seems it's time for a cool down period cause people are getting a bit 
unreasonable. Please don’t get caught up to much in this it's only wikipedia 
. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 08:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Mariah-Yulia :) Actually, Lvivske, I'm married to a Ukrainian and have lived and taught there, so I have no beef with Ukrainians at all, quite the opposite. But here on Wikipedia, hyper-nationalism often leads to anti-Russian sentiments. "Nationalism" is usually a bad word when used of Wikipedia editors because it means inserting POV into articles. It certainly doesn't refer to someone who stands when the national anthem is played, and respects all the elements that have gone to build modern Ukraine. And I disagree that it's "silly"--it's quite clear and straightforward. And for English speakers, the variation in spelling can be important to readers. After all, Wikipedia's purpose is to provide users with information quickly and easily. Anything that accomplishes that is to be preferred. (Taivo (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC))
- *Joining the "thank you" chorus*. Lvivske (Львівське), take into account that per our policy on article titles and our naming conventions for geographic names the names/forms used in our articles merely mimic the ones commonly used in English-language publications, which in this particular case happen to be both Kharkov and Kharkiv. Only one can be used as title (and in this case, it probably should be "Kharkov", but that is another issue), but the first sentence has to mention both in equal terms, thus allowing for a quick identification of the subject and conveying to the reader that both are commonly used in English. Remember that the English-language Wikipedia is not prescriptive, but merely descriptive of English usage. - Best, Ev (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Note for context: Mariah-Yulia edits the first sentence (09:20, 12 April 2010 UTC). Ev (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- I can live with the way that Mariah-Yulia has done the first sentence--with only the Ukrainian Cyrillic form in the parens between "Kharkiv" and "Kharkov". (Taivo (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC))
- Me too. - Ev (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- I agree; it's clear and comprehensive. Knepflerle (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
See Books Ngram Viewer --butko (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- The toponym "KarkІv" with the letter "I" was first officially used by the Bolsheviks in the XX century. This was done for the purpose of internationalization of the ex Russian Empire. Actually KharkІv is just a transliteration of the city name in the Ukrainian manner. The name of the city was given by its founders back in the days when about the Ukrainian language even no one thought (Vladislav from Kharkov (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)).
Kharkiv is Ukrainian city, not Russian. I vote for KHARKIV and only KHARKIV! --70.111.79.146 (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- So what? Kharkov now is part of Ukraine - it's the fact! But we have original names of cities and should use them in the English Wikipedia. Please take a look on the page of the capital of Ukraine. Why there still not the modern (from ХХ century) variant of name but original? DUKE (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ukrainian nationalists in the English version of Wikipedia had translated almost all of the names of cities in Ukraine in the Ukrainian style of pronunciation. But there is no single system based on which all of the city were named in the English Wikipedia. Some times they used historical traditions, some times just they own thoughts. "Kharkov" - it's original name of city and historical toponym (read the "Book of Big Drawing" 1627), but in English Wikipedia West-Ukrainian lobby is very strong and they (?) decided to use modern Ukrainian-style (from twentieth years of XX century ) name "Khakiv". So the question is: WHY they don't change historical name "Kiev" into modern style "Kyiv", WHY "Odessa", but not "OdeSa", WHY "Donetsk", but not "Donets'k", WHY "Simferopol" and "Sevastopol" but NOT "Simferopil" and "Sevastopil"?!? Why do you spit on the historical background of our home city? DUKE (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
First of all, you are Russian nationalist. Tell me, why independent Ukraine has to use Russian translation to English? Anyway, fortunately Ukraine is not part of Russia anymore, hopefully never will be again. Is it so hard to write and remember Kharkiv in English instead of Kharkov? Of course not! There is something else... And this something else is HATE to all Ukrainian - culture, language, history etc. --68.38.122.179 (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Why?
- Kiev? It's the absolute most common use in English. Odessa? Ditto. Donetsk? The use of ' in Ukrainian translit isn't used, so it's the same in both languages regardless. Simferopol/Sevastopol are spelled the same in Ukrainian and Russian so I don't see your point there. 'Simferopil' and 'Sevastopil' aren't cities, just something you made up. --Львівське (говорити) 15:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- You can add my response here to Lvivske's response. --Taivo (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Since when did anybody start to care how Russians or Ukrainians spell Kharkov in Russian and Ukrainian language ? English language has it's own name for the town - Kharkov (It's English yes, otherwise it would be written in Cyrillic). Kharkiv is not an English name and has nothing to do with politics or Ukrainian or Russian history. It's grammar. --Special:Contributions/46.33.215.122 (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Kharkiv/ov for sports team names?
For what its worth, in soccer the team is called FC Metalist Kharkiv and on their official site they refer to themselves as 'Kharkiv'. However, my area of interest is hockey so in going on the sites for teams from here, I've noticed that they always use the 'ov' name and Russian language. HC Kharkov, Kharkov Sharks, Kharkov SDYUSSHOR, and so on. I'm on the site right now for Dynamo Kharkov - that's how their English language version of the site spells it, straight up. So just wondering, are there any other examples of Kharkov as official usage, in English, for organizations from the city? --Львівське (говорити) 21:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Here is the city's official web site. Notice the mix of "Kharkiv" and "Kharkov". --Taivo (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- oh jesus... --Львівське (говорити) 02:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is the nature of life in a bilingual country.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Unofficial bilingual, surzhyk mess. Now here in Canada, where we have official bilingualism, its really one or the other, or one with a small version of the other just for accessibility, but never a 50/50 schizophrenic split like that site. We do split here for ads / corporate logos I guess to save real estate....but that's always dumb --Львівське (говорити) 16:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- The fundamental problem is that Russian and Ukrainian are, in actual fact, simply dialects of a single language, so mutual intelligibility is high and people there who don't really spend a lot of time thinking about it (most people, especially in the East) grab words constantly from one or the other. Western Ukrainians care more about it, but from about Kyiv eastwards, Surzhyk, Russo-Ukrainian, and Ukraino-Russian are the order of the day. --Taivo (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Check out Odessa's official web site, where the header on the English page is in Russian, not Ukrainian. Here's another site that mixes Russian names with Ukrainian ones, so Kharkiv and Kharkov both make an appearance (as well as Kiev/Kyiv, Rivne/Rovno, etc. And note that even though Uzhhorod is as far west as you can get and still be in Ukraine, it's listed as Uzhgorod on this site. (Note that it's a .ua site, so it's from Ukraine.) --Taivo (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- The fundamental problem is that Russian and Ukrainian are, in actual fact, simply dialects of a single language, so mutual intelligibility is high and people there who don't really spend a lot of time thinking about it (most people, especially in the East) grab words constantly from one or the other. Western Ukrainians care more about it, but from about Kyiv eastwards, Surzhyk, Russo-Ukrainian, and Ukraino-Russian are the order of the day. --Taivo (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Unofficial bilingual, surzhyk mess. Now here in Canada, where we have official bilingualism, its really one or the other, or one with a small version of the other just for accessibility, but never a 50/50 schizophrenic split like that site. We do split here for ads / corporate logos I guess to save real estate....but that's always dumb --Львівське (говорити) 16:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is the nature of life in a bilingual country.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- oh jesus... --Львівське (говорити) 02:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- This sums things up haha --Львівське (говорити) 13:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia needs a "Like" button :) --Taivo (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Kharkiv ?
Since when is Kharkov called Kharkiv in English language ? What standardized dictionary did you use ?--Special:Contributions/46.33.215.122 (talk) 09:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's called Kharkiv in Ukrainian, Kharkov in Russian, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- "It's called Kharkiv in Ukrainian, Kharkov in Russian"
- I'm not talking about how they are called in Ukrainian and Russian, I'm talking about how it is called in English. This is English Wikipedia. Besides, you are wrong. In Ukrainian it isn't called Kharkiv, but Харків, and in Russian it isn't Kharkov but Ха́рьков.
- In what English dictionary did you find name Kharkiv ? Besides pseudo-dictionaries you find online.
- Why are Ukrainian and Russian opinions about Ukrainian and Russian language and politics relevant for naming customs in English language ? Is Wikipedia turning into a news outlet ?--Special:Contributions/46.33.215.122 (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- You got a link above, please go and read it.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- I read it, it is full of people posting dumb political jokes. I'm reading name of Kharkov for last 50 years in every English publication ever, and all of a sudden, year of 2014 is here, and here they are, smart and invincible millennials are there to teach everybody a lesson, one of which is English language must abide by Ukrainian pronunciations. Yiss..... If you disagree, they'll create consensus and hush you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.33.215.122 (talk • contribs)
- You must have misclicked. There are no political jokes (of a dumb kind or otherwise) at the link suggested to you. Please try again.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 20, 2014; 16:07 (UTC)
- Sigh. This article stays stable and uncontroversially at Kharkiv for years. Until Russia and its propagandist editors show up to try to push Ukraine around--both on the ground and on Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- You must have misclicked. There are no political jokes (of a dumb kind or otherwise) at the link suggested to you. Please try again.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 20, 2014; 16:07 (UTC)
- I read it, it is full of people posting dumb political jokes. I'm reading name of Kharkov for last 50 years in every English publication ever, and all of a sudden, year of 2014 is here, and here they are, smart and invincible millennials are there to teach everybody a lesson, one of which is English language must abide by Ukrainian pronunciations. Yiss..... If you disagree, they'll create consensus and hush you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.33.215.122 (talk • contribs)
- You got a link above, please go and read it.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Why are Ukrainian and Russian opinions about Ukrainian and Russian language and politics relevant for naming customs in English language ? Is Wikipedia turning into a news outlet ?--Special:Contributions/46.33.215.122 (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Clash
The infobox contains these two contradictory facts:
- Founded: 1654
- City rights: 1552 - 1654
How can the city have city rights earlier then being founded?? --Mity (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Quite simple explanation - Kharkiv was founded before 1654. Unfortunately, the article about Kharkiv is imprecise. I would suggest you to switch to Russian language and translate what you find there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.211.246 (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Kharkiv. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/120113
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Not a dead link, but slow loading. Leaving it as archived capture to avoid timing out. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Dinara Klinton
An IP editor keeps deleting Dinara Klinton (née Nadzhafova) from the list of notable people, on the grounds that it is an unsourced red link.[7][8] There is no problem providing evidence that she is from Kharkov. Sources say that she was born there,[9] and was at school there.[10] I do not know whether there ought to be an article on her - maybe there will be one day. Currently there is a redirect to an article on a competition she was in.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Her notability isn't obvious.Xx236 (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Kharkiv. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/winter99-00/art6.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150408202650/http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26910210 to http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9bd_1396967425
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.city.kharkov.ua/uk/city/index/
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mfa.gov.ua/usa/ua/1608.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mfa.gov.ua/latvia/ua/26040.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mfa.gov.ua/lithuania/ua/publication/content/41348.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://kutaisi.gov.ge/eng/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=81&Itemid=140
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mfa.gov.ua/france/fr/publication/content/10806.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kiew.diplo.de/Vertretung/kiew/uk/06/Staedtepartnerschaften/Liste.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.poznan.pl/mim/publikacje/pages.html?co=list&id=19&ch=20&instance=1017&lang=pl
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://gov.spb.ru/day/inter
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mfa.gov.ua/bulgaria/ua/publication/content/38988.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Is this Charkow?
Howdy. I was trying to look up info on Charkow (the city's name in the 1910s. Is this the same city as Kharkiv, or a different one. I'm not finding a page for Charkow. Thanks. Tesseract501 (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, Charkow is the traditional German name for Kharkov. (Though the influence of Ukrainian nationalism has produced De:Charkiv lol.)-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Could some more info on name/spelling changes and alternatives be added to the article? There's no mention of Charkow and only one of Kharkov (without any further explanation). I assume the last one is the Russian version? FinnishOverlord (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Agree, we most not ignore that Kharkov is more prevalent than Kharkiv. This certainly merits more than one unexplained mention of the more common name. https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Kharkov,Kharkiv Newuser1138 (talk) 11:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Ukrainian nationalism has nothing to do with the naming convention. The so-called "traditional German name" is just a transliteration of the Russian name. Because Eastern Ukraine was under the Russian rule, Russians could tell the foreigners how to spell the city's name in their respective languages. No surprise, they chose the Russian spelling instead of the local Ukrainian one. Similarly, Lviv during the Austrian rule would also be called by its German name Lemberg even in the non-German sources. The city is Ukrainian, not Russian, luckily, Ukraine has finally got independence, that's why the correct spelling should follow the local name, i.e. Kharkiv or Charkiw in English or German, respectively. Homme (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- A reminder that this is an article talk page, not a soapbox. The question was answered = end of thread. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Ukrainian nationalism has nothing to do with the naming convention. The so-called "traditional German name" is just a transliteration of the Russian name. Because Eastern Ukraine was under the Russian rule, Russians could tell the foreigners how to spell the city's name in their respective languages. No surprise, they chose the Russian spelling instead of the local Ukrainian one. Similarly, Lviv during the Austrian rule would also be called by its German name Lemberg even in the non-German sources. The city is Ukrainian, not Russian, luckily, Ukraine has finally got independence, that's why the correct spelling should follow the local name, i.e. Kharkiv or Charkiw in English or German, respectively. Homme (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Kharkiv. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141216090513/http://www.rtm.ua/en/aboutcompany/rtminukrainemap/kharkivregion to http://www.rtm.ua/en/aboutcompany/rtminukrainemap/kharkivregion
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140829124130/http://vharkov.ru/description/about.html to http://vharkov.ru/description/about.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160809042516/http://www.led.org.ua/en/ to http://www.led.org.ua/en/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170107042251/https://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/amb-kharkiv-econ-forum-09042015.html to http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/amb-kharkiv-econ-forum-09042015.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160817021333/http://www.it-kharkiv.com.ua/ to http://it-kharkiv.com.ua/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160707195050/http://kharkivglobal.com/en/service to http://kharkivglobal.com/en/service
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160727204436/http://www.khdu.org/house.php to http://www.khdu.org/house.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kharkiv. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160827151112/http://www.vnz.univ.kiev.ua/content/school/37 to http://www.vnz.univ.kiev.ua/content/school/37
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Wrong population number
2,139,036 looks inadequate.
According to the corresponding article on the Ukrainian Wikipedia (https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%B2), it's 1,446,107 (estimated) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyshch (talk • contribs) 16:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Footnote error in this article regarding Kharkiv's origins
In the paragraph titled "Establishment," the article makes the following incorrect statement: "The years before the region was a sparsely populated part of the Cossack Hetmanate.[12]" The footnote refers to Roman Solchanyk's work, Ukraine and Russia: The Post-Soviet Transition.
However, upon checking the source (on page six) it is clear that Solchanyk writes the exact opposite of what this article indicates. Solychanyk's exact words are:"At the same time, Russia consolidated its control of the sparsely populated regions east of the old Hetmanate (the Kharkiv region and the Donbas)..."
Essentially, Solchanyk is pointing out that the "regions east" of the Hetmanate were not part of the Hetmanate, as this Wikipedia article incorrectly states. I know from my readings of history that the Kharkiv and Donbass regions were, from 1503 onward, part of the Tsardom of Russia, which until 1549, was called the Grand Principality of Moscow. Prior to 1503, those lands - which were virtually uninhabited - were part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
So how did Ukrainians end up in this Russian frontier territory of Kharkiv? Well, the Wikipedia article does correctly inform that Ukrainian Cossacks moved to this area from their prior home, which was a region in Central Ukraine then under the role of the Poles. But the Wikipedia fails to acknowledge that this eastward migration of Ukrainian Cossacks means they crossed the border into Russia, and as a consequence, established a new home in Russia, and then became subjects of the Russian tsar. The region that subsequently formed around Kharkiv became known as Sloboda Ukraine, a Russian frontier area inhabited jointly by Russian and Ukrainian settlers. At the time, the 1600s, the shared goal of these Russians and Ukrainians was to organize a military establishment that could repel the frequent Crimean Tatar invasions which regularly ravaged the region. Kenmore (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Climate
I don’t like that this article says that the city has hot summers. The city experiences about 3 hot days in excess of 90 degrees. The summers are warm, not hot 2600:8800:312E:7300:964:C3BB:5882:4DF1 (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed Jim Michael (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Languages
If I recall correctly an earlier version of this article had language statistics for Kharkiv, but I can’t seem to find them in the article anymore. Can anyone knowledgeable about the demographics of Kharkiv provide statistics on the percentage of residents who speak Ukrainian versus Russian versus both? For example, I would assume that the percentage of Kharkivites who speak Ukrainian at home would be lower than in more western cities such as Lviv and Kyiv, but higher than, say, in Donetsk or Luhansk, but IMHO it would be informative to have more quantititative statistics. Thanks so much in advance —PowerPCG5 (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Twin towns – sister cities
Russian cities were officially excluded from this list, see https://suspilne.media/238139-harkiv-rozirvav-pobratimski-vidnosini-z-rosijskimi-mistami/ (media) and https://www.city.kharkov.ua/uk/news/-50716.html (official source)
 | This edit request to Kharkiv has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
People
Add Isabelle "REZZ" Rezazadeh to the 'People' section of the page. She is a Ukrainian-born (Kharkiv), Canadian-raised DJ of note who is immensely popular in the U.S. and Canada as well as the rest of the world. I feel she would be a great addition as she is relevant to the culture today (her sales figures and being placed highly [headlining] in music festival lineups). Linking her would not only reflect her status as a popular musician, but I believe would attract more people from all over to reflexively click on the link to 'Kharkiv' (and vice versa), drawing greater attention to a city at the center of a globally affected geopolitical situation. Drewski bt (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rezz Drewski bt (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2022
| | This edit request to Kharkiv has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change Kharkiv (Ukrainian: Ха́рків, IPA: [ˈxɑrkiu̯] (listen)), also known as Kharkov (Russian: Харькoв, IPA: [ˈxarʲkəf]), to Kharkiv (Ukrainian: Ха́рків, IPA: [ˈxɑrkiu̯] (listen)),
it's a Ukrainian city and the official language is Ukrainian as well, no need for russian translation Snoopyrapidw (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}}template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Kharkov
- Surely the fact that the city is also known by its Russian name Kharkov, especially before Ukrainian independence, ought to at least be mentioned in the "Names" section, if it's too controversial to put in the lede.2601:85:C202:150:C59E:7642:AF90:3129 (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- I decided to be bold and just add it to the lede. It shouldn't be controversial that the city was known as Kharkov in most English sources until 1991. At the moment the "Battle of Kharkov" links make little sense without this information somewhere.2601:85:C202:150:1DA8:64B3:4025:3291 (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, let's not stumble over ultranationalism. Russian is widely spoken and protected by the constitution of Ukraine. There is no good reason not to include a name it is widely known by.Grace Note (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, the timing of that statement blaming Ukraine for "ultranationalism"... -- DevSolar2 (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I interpret that statement as reassuring us that we can improve the encyclopedia without letting the malign influence of, or disproportionate reaction to, extreme Russian ultranationalism and imperialism harm the results. —Michael Z. 14:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, the timing of that statement blaming Ukraine for "ultranationalism"... -- DevSolar2 (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, let's not stumble over ultranationalism. Russian is widely spoken and protected by the constitution of Ukraine. There is no good reason not to include a name it is widely known by.Grace Note (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Why russian transcription in Ukrainian city?
Only one state language in Ukraine and it is ukrainian. How did russian end up here?
Remove this. Bob Travokyr (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- MOS:LEADLANG does give guidance that “a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence,” and “do not include foreign equivalents in the text of the lead sentence for alternative names.” The Russian transcription can be moved to the discussion of naming in the “History” section. —Michael Z. 14:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is not the first time you raise this issue, however, the current practice is to add Russian name to predominantly Russian-speaking localities. We have discussed this many times before. If you want to challenge the current consensus, please open an RfC and advertise it broadly enough. Ymblanter (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, you have claimed that this is current practice, although I haven’t seen evidence, suspect this is only the case for a few random localities, and have seen no criteria for identifying “predominantly Russian-speaking” localities. If it is the case, please find consensus to update the MOS or WP:UAPLACE. Until then, there will continue to be confusion and disagreements.
- In the meantime, we should determine consensus for this article here.
- I see no reason to diverge from current practice, as documented in the guideline, in this article. Kharkov is a common spelling in older material, so it belongs in the lead. But the rationale in the guideline applies to the native Russian name and pronunciation, Russian: Харькoв, IPA: [ˈxarʲkəf]: “Do not include foreign equivalents in the text of the lead sentence for alternative names or for particularly lengthy names, as this clutters the lead sentence and impairs readability. Do not include foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology.” This secondary foreign naming information belongs in the body of the article, perhaps alongside Yiddish as well. —Michael Z. 19:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Russian spelling has been in the lede of the article since 2004. This is a de-facto consensus. To change it, you would need a RfC. This is WP:CONSENSUS. Concerning "random localities", it is clear that you have not made any research. Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, two foreign spellings were added to the lead in 2004, when the first bold name was Kharkov and word count was less than 200,[11] Russian pronunciation added in 2012,[12] but the guideline was established in 2014.[13] Things change. This article wasn’t updated to meet the community’s consensus. I think it may be time for a community discussion about content in the lead in articles about Ukrainian places, to gauge consensus. —Michael Z. 23:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Btw the topic starter has only one edit. This is either a bot or a human sent here by a social media campaign, similarly to the starters of the two topics above.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Russian spelling has been in the lede of the article since 2004. This is a de-facto consensus. To change it, you would need a RfC. This is WP:CONSENSUS. Concerning "random localities", it is clear that you have not made any research. Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is not the first time you raise this issue, however, the current practice is to add Russian name to predominantly Russian-speaking localities. We have discussed this many times before. If you want to challenge the current consensus, please open an RfC and advertise it broadly enough. Ymblanter (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
What the hell option: "russian: Kharkov"???
DELETE THIS! In Ukraine we have only one state language: Ukrainian. Kharkiv: Ukrainian city, and must have only one transcription: Ukrainian: Kharkiv. 151.34.205.147 (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Do the same thing with other UKRAINIAN cities. REMOVE russian transcription! Natalkadoncovka (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- We seem to be under a bot attack, yet again. Ymblanter (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
This suggestion is consistent with the official policy MOS:LEADLANG. There’s no any reason to oppose the removal of the russian name unless you are trying to promote a pro-russian POV. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 09:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2022
| | This edit request to Kharkiv has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the russian name per MOS:LEADLANG. I tried this, but my edits kept get reverted without any policy-based explanation. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 08:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC) 🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 08:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- The user has been already warned and, when I have time, I will nominate them for arbitration enforcement topic ban from Ukrainian topics. Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- A topic ban for what? For leaving messages in talk pages? This is a ridiculous reason. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 08:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- You have given alert about discretionary sanctions, but your behavior in the topic area remains disruptive, and your edits in multiple articles were reverted by many users. Which did not prompt you to change the behaviour. This means arbitration enforcement is needed to stop this. Ymblanter (talk) 08:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- A topic ban for what? For leaving messages in talk pages? This is a ridiculous reason. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 08:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- And then you will say that you are not promoting a pro russian POV. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 08:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- You don’t agree with a 100% policy based argument like this one. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 08:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- Also the “discretionary sanctions” were given by a non-admin, and the warning for vandalism is nonsensical because my edits are WP:NOTV. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 09:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm removing the edit request flag as there appears to be no consensus for this change. Please continue discussing and only post an edit request when there is consensus. --Mvqr (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Mvqr:, I’m sorry, but this is ridiculous. I have cited a policy page, which the article in its current state violates. Why is consensus needed to follow Wikipedia’s policy? -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 14:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- Slava Ukraini Heroyam Slava 123}, Wikipedia:Consensus is policy, it is the way to solve disagreements here. --Mvqr (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Mvqr:, I’m sorry, but this is ridiculous. I have cited a policy page, which the article in its current state violates. Why is consensus needed to follow Wikipedia’s policy? -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 14:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Mvqr:, what do you mean?
Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
The guidelines say to write the name of a city in only one foreign language. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 16:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Mvqr:, what do you mean?
- There is also MOS:LEADALT. Mellk (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)