Talk:Kyiv/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Accompanying image

I uploaded a photo of the city's main square. I'm not sure how appropriate it is, considering it was taken on a really hot summer day to illustrate how the people were cooling off in the fountains, but it was the best Kyiv photo I could find from my personal collection. I agree we should move on from the naming dispute and add more information about the beautiful modern city. --Iceager 02:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Khreshatyk is not an area, but a main street

People, Khreshatyk is a name of Kyiv's main street, not of a whole area. I'm not sure how to name the entire area since the street is situated right between two historical areas. One of them is Pechers'k and other is forgot-what-the-name-is. So somebody please correct the image note. Administratively, the street is situated in the edge of city's Pechers'ky rayon. But don't mind that: Kyiv's new bureaucratic subdivision is so amazing that we Kyivans can't get it for 3 years :(( AlexPU

Duly noted, and since I don't really know what to call the area either, I just indicated the names of the square and the street. --Iceager 04:47, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

History section update

I've just widened history section. To be continued for post-WWII period. Would somebody please check my non-native-English grammar? Relevant internal links are also wellcomed. Techno fans, please check the tram priority. I heard that Kyivan line was really the world's first. AlexPU

Infobox

I've added the proposed infobox (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukrainian subdivisions), and moved the first picture to the left to accommodate it. The layout seems a bit awkward; any better suggestions? Perhaps it could go into the bottom of the infobox? —Michael Z. 01:43, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)

Michael, I see a little design error with this particular infobox. The thumbnail map shows the location of Kyivs'ka oblast', not Kiev. While big map is OK with that. AlexPU 11:18, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Alex. I think that's because Steschke updated the image, but Wikipedia still hasn't flushed its cache and updated the small version. I've found it can take a day or so (very frustrating—I once uploaded about three versions of an image before I realized that it was working but I couldn't see the results). —Michael Z. 16:58, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)

I've accidentally came across some statistical information for Kiev on the Obolon district website. See here: Obolon district administration website (in Ukrainian). -- mno July 6, 2005 19:15 (UTC)

Restructuring in progress

People, I've started a major widening and restructuring of the article. That's why some of the earlier passages were removed - only to include them in the future following sections. I consider most of them correct, while few are factually mistaken in details. The old version of the introduction will be placed here to preserve its info

Kiev, officially Kyiv (Київ, Kyiv in Ukrainian; Киев, Kiev in Russian; Kijów in Polish) is the capital and largest city of Ukraine, and has officially around 2.6 million inhabitants, although the large number of unregistered domestic immigrants would probably raise this figure to about 4 million.

Kiev is located in north central Ukraine, at 50° 25′ N, 133° 43′ E. The Dnipro (Dnieper) river flows south through the city towards the Black Sea; in the west is the 'old city' of Pechersk, built on the hills overlooking the right bank, where the famous Lavra monastery is located. Also in the west are the city center, government buildings, embassies, theatres, and most local industrial complexes. On the east side of the river lie several residential areas, and the nearby Boryspil international airport.

The city has a three line metro system (total length 54.8 km), and extensive bus, tram, and trolleybus routes. On weekends, the streets of Khreschatyk (the center of the city) are closed to vehicular traffic, in favor of pedestrians. Visitors to Kiev in May can catch the springtime festival [1].

Best wishes, AlexPU

Famous Kievans section

I don't think there should be a famous people section. Many of these people are hardly famous, or famous only for specialists. Besides, Kyiv is a big city, undoubtedly having a decent impact on the world, and this section could become so bloated that the article looks absurd. I say we remove this. Crculver 01:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This seems like a valid point. A good fraction of Ukrainians is associated with Kiev in some way. The fully expanded section would be like 50% of the List of Ukrainians. I think the section should be just dropped. --Gene s 08:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Don't get your point, guys. I've got the idea of the section from the Warsaw (and may be dozens of other cities have such). So should we "drop" the section for Kyiv only (which looks like a censorship or a discrimination)? If so, I would oppose the deletion as a matter of principle. If you suggest it for every each city page in Wikipedia, the question should be solved under a highest-level procedures (voting, Wiki rules etc). BTW, could a transforming of the section to separate List of Kyivans be the better decision to avoid bloating?

As for the selection of the people, don't get your point also. The section (or list) is aimed to link a reader to the particular persons (and, in a way, to promote their pages), not to prove something about the city. I've handpicked the persons in the section to select only those globally-important. If they are hardly famous for some reader - may be he/she should work on his/her own erudition ;) ? Anyway, I'm willing not only to discuss the particular candidates, but also to establish strict criteria and quantity limits for the section. Best wishes,AlexPU

First of all, this is a talk page. It's used for discussion. We are discussing. No harm done, right? Let's try to actually discuss the merits instead of rattling with "censorship" or "discrimination".

Second, if Warsaw page does something wrong, it does not mean that every other page should do the same. OK, there are city articles listing related people by name. There are city articles that aren't (for example, NYC). Thus you argument "Foo does it, so Bar must do it too" does not work.

If you want to list honorary citizens, it's useful. But listing pretty much everybody from the List of Ukrainians is wrong. Try to work out a useful criteria first (you list Klichko, but not Bubka, Bilgakov, but not Malevich. Is it "censorship" or "discrimination"?). You will quickly see that it's nearly impossible. --Gene s 15:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If the section's length is at issue, it can easily be moved to a separate article at Famous Kievans if and when it grows long. —Michael Z. 2005-01-31 16:11 Z

My objection primarily concerns the fact that pretty much any famous person is related to the capital of his/her country. The list of Famous Kievans will not be saliently different from the List of Ukrainians. They will be the same for like 50% or more of entries. Maybe this list thing is better addressed through categories. The lists of famous residents work for small towns, but not for cities/capitals. --Gene s 05:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Look at the ugly thing this section had grown in Saint Petersburg. --Gene s 06:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First of all, Genes, you do list anyone you think is important. And discuss deletion of anybody. It is not a censorship from my side.

About "harm" and examples from other cities. Unfortunately, there are too many propagandists and politically-biased vandals here on WP. The equality and standardization among cities may be just another argument against them. Hence my preemptive attack. Although I agree that Warsaw list is unnecessarily deep.

What we can benefit from your opinion, is that I should work further on both Kyivans section and List of Ukrainians. Indeed, I 'm coming to the conclusion that those working/living in the city do not belong here. As for excessive correlation with List of Ukrainians - it's about the incompleteness of that list, not the overcrowding of the Kyivans. Definitely, two lists should not copy each other even in 50% of the names. I mean three parts of Ukraine (not to mention diaspora and Ukrainian immigrants) have lived separately for few centuries. So I guess a dozen of important Ukrainians have never been to Kyiv. BTW, this kind of logic may be even more useful for NYC famous people - since US is a decentralized country with several important centers.

So my suggestions, people:

• We work further on the criteria and limits
• We can delete living/working section (although I suspect Vernads'ky should be in "born" subsection)
• We get ready to move the section into separate page when it grows long (which would never happen if we adopt criteria : ) )
• Waiting for new candidates

Best wishes, AlexPU

Deleted the "living/working" subsection following recurrent reader claims. Waiting for further suggestions. Pryvit, AlexPU

Guys, I would like to second the opinion that the Kiev article does not need a famous Kievans section. Such section is appropriate for smaller and relatively obscure cities whose famous people may help "put it on the map" of the world or of the region at least. Kiev already is very well on the map and it is obvious that a city of this scale had to produce lots of famous people. While a separate Famous Kievans article is rather harmless (whether it is useful, I am still not sure), such section in Kiev article harms the article by diluting it. Irpen 04:32, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

I just deleted the Famous Kievans section from the article for the reasons noted above ten days ago. There is no need for a place of the scale of Kiev to have a list of its famous people in its article. One thing is for a small town of Stebliv, Cherkas'ka oblast', article to mention its native Ivan Nechuy-Levyts'ky (a Ukrainian writer), it prides for. Quite another thing is Kiev, which relates to hundreds or thousands of famous people.

Generally, the article needs to be reworked thoroughly (at least I feel so). Unfortunately, I don't have enough knowledge and skill to rewrite it, but I would be happy to help if someone takes upon this project. Cheers, Irpen 21:34, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Reasons of capital move to Kharkiv

This relates to a recent inclusion of the statement: "Kharkiv was declared its capital due to it being more dominated by the working class and ethnic Russians"

I reverted the inclusion of the latter claim. I don't have ideological problems with this possibility. The problem I have with it is that inclusion of unconventional ideas to encyclopedia articles should be made with caution. This idea is unconventional. I have not heard of it at all, which of course does not mean it cannot be true. However, this needs to be sourced to some respectable sources. If others can provide references, lets look and discuss them at the talk page. The sources should be, at least somewhat, academic rather publications in selectively picked highly POV web sites or newspapers. Once we reach some consensus, we can move this into the article. Please, no flames! Irpen 01:58, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't think this is a controversial statement at all.

Instead, the real problem with the sentence (as it originally was) is that it takes the official Soviet position at face value: "due to it being dominated by the working class" -- rather than the more likely reason, that the early Soviet government mistrusted the Ukrainians and believed a more Russified city would be more politically reliable. For obvious reasons, there are no statements by Lenin to this effect, but it is entirely consistent with Soviet policy before and after.

The Soviet POV, I would contend, appears all too often in Wikipedia. Quite often this is, as above, by the omission of uncomfortable details. Several articles about WWII, for example Hero City, fail(ed) to mention the Hitler-Stalin Pact while discussing the German invasion in 1941.

--ProhibitOnions 12:15, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)

"I don't think this is a controversial statement at all". I do not think it is controversial either. And besides, I don't care. Many facts or widespread intepretations are included in wikipedia that can be called controversial. The problem with this statement is that it is unconventional. It is also a POV but the POV or not discussion will become relevant when we establish at least some acceptance of this interpretation among academics. The rest here is your own speculations. They sound credible, but they are unsupported as of now. Not only they are not supported by official statements, as you point out. You are right, that such official statements would not have been given in any case. This POV is unsupported among historians. As I said, refer to some respected sources rather than your own inferences which may or may not be valid.

As for the Soviet POV flooding the Wikipedia, this is irrelevant. Each corrections should be included based on its own merit. I will respond to your "Hero City" line on the relevant talk page. Irpen 20:08, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

As the author of the disputed passage, I agree with Ipren's claim. Sorry, I've substituted fact with analysis. The better form for my idea would be more dominated (...) and Bolsheviks (since the fact that 1920s Bolshevism in Ukraine was a predominantly Russian/Jewish movement). However, I've not read the whole discussion. Hope to do it off-line and make proper changes. Best wishes, AlexPU

This is the sentence Irpen has reverted to:

The Bolsheviks took control of Kiev in 1920. After the Ukrainian SSR was formed under Moscow rule, Kharkiv was declared its capital due to it being more dominated by the working class. In 1934, the capital was moved back to Kiev, starting a new period of growth and the reestablishment of a Ukrainian spirit (mostly by migrants).

This accepts the official Soviet point of view without any question. Kharkiv was considered potentially more loyal, which is why the capital was moved there. The Soviet claim that this was because of the working class MUST be treated with skepticism or qualified, which this does not do. I wrote the following instead, which both neutralizes this statement without removing it and adds an alternative without endorsing it:

After the Ukrainian SSR was formed under Moscow rule, Kharkiv was declared its capital, ostensibly because it was more dominated by the working class, although Bolshevik suspicions of Ukrainian "bourgeois nationalism" likely played a role in moving the capital to a city both closer to Russia proper and with a large number of ethnic Russians.

This is NOT, as Iphren claims, "original research." This is, as many historians concede, very likely the exact reason why this was done, just as the Soviet capital moved from St. Petersburg to Moscow for reasons of geography and class. However, as there was, for clear reasons, never a statement from Lenin or others saying "We mistrust Ukrainians" it is also qualified. Soviet neologisms were often used, "bourgeois nationalism" being one of them, duly cited in the text in quotation marks. You cannot accept statements at face value, especially not those of a dictatorship, which is what these paragraphs do.

Now, the famine. Interesting how Iphren doesn't think a genocide of millions of the regime's opponents doesn't rate a brief mention, even though it is directly related to the subsequent move of the capital back to Kiev, as Ukrainian opposition had been largely neutralized, and Stalin's purges and Russification program were in full swing. Yes, as Iphren puts it on the revert, a full discussion of the "famine info belongs to other articles," but a brief mention of it to provide the historical context is germane; in fact, to omit it entirely is to collude with Soviet propaganda:

In 1934, after Stalin's deliberate famine of 1933 had killed an estimated 7 to 11 million people, including much of the country's anti-Communist peasantry, the capital was moved back to Kiev, starting a new period of growth and migration from other parts of the Soviet Union.

I'm still not happy with the last part of the sentence, because the migration it refers to occured partly for the same reasons, as the Soviet Union incontrovertibly found Russians more trustworthy than other groups. However, I did chop out the "the reestablishment of a Ukrainian spirit," which is editorializing, and the opposite of the intended effect of the migration.

Notice that this is indeed NPOV, I didn't say "because of the famine" or "due to their preference for ethnic Russians" or whatever. If someone objects to the wording, fine, rewrite it. But I have the feeling that the person who simply reverted this passage, along with a similar article elsewhere, did so for reason other than love of neutral phrasing. --ProhibitOnions 13:06, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

More on changes made to "Early Soviet Rule and World War II section"

I will not respond to the personal attack directed at "the person who simply reverted this passage...". As for the substance of the issue:

1. Reasons of Capital move to Kharkov. ProhibitOnions introduced to the article an idea that one of the reasons of the capital move was the fact Kharkov's was more dominated by ethnic Russians than Kiev. This claim has some logic in the context of the events, but I have not seen this claim made in any serious source. If this is due to my ignorance, I suggest ProhibitOnions provides at least some references, or, if he can't find them off hand, at least gives some hints where he saw this info, so that it can be checked. His statement on the talk page that "many historians concede" on this is too vague of a reference. If this is indeed his own speculation based on his interpretation of the logic of events, this qualifies as original research, whose place is current scholary or popular publications, personal web-sites, etc., but not an encyclopedia, which should reflect an established knowledge.

2. Possible role of famine in the capital return to Kiev. PO agrees, that the detalied discussion of the issue belongs to other articles but thinks, its mention is also relevant here. My point is that this info is factually accurate, but its relevance is too remote. Deliberate killing of milions of people was a horrible crime, but Kiev itself, unlike the vast regions of Ukrainian countryside, was not ravaged by famine. Should the info on the deliberate famine caused by the actions of the Bolshevik government be introduced into every article related to any Ukrainian topic? If PO helps me understand why famine should be in Kiev article, I am open to ideas.

3. Finally, PO removed from the article the statement that Kiev growth was mostly caused by migration from other parts of Ukraine which indeed started a period of re-establishment of a Ukrainian spirit in the city. This is confirmed, for example, by a relative rise of Ukrainian theater and literature in Kiev at the time. He substituted it by the statement about "the migration from other parts of the Soviet Union." Where does he get this info?

The changes he introduced seem ideological rather that relevant and I reverted them once which was followed by PO restoring them. Now, I laid out my objections. I am looking forward for the responses and will wait for some days before making changes to the current version of the article. Please, no flames. Irpen 19:02, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

OK, the note above has been up for almost a week and no one posted any objections. I will wait for another day or two and, unless ProhibitOnions or someone else steps in with any claims that substantiate the questionable info, I will restore the paragraph on Kiev<-> Kharkov capital moves to the version that existed before PO made his changes. Again, if any serious sources can support the claims he makes, just mention them here. Thanks, and please no flames. Irpen 22:25, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

How old is Kiev?

This 1500 years number is rather arbitraty and trying to get even more precise as anon did is meaningless. The celebration of 1500 anniversary in 1982 was a very rough guess combined with a political debate around "how much is enough" and Brezhnev's visit to Ukraine. I checked several online encyclopediae. Brtiannica says: "Archaeological evidence suggests that Kiev was founded in the 6th or 7th century AD". Groiler online says: "Kiev was first mentioned in Russian chronicles in 860" (note that Primary Chronicle was complied in 12th century). Columbia says: " It probably existed as a commercial center as early as the 5th cent. A Slavic settlement on the great trade route between Scandinavia and Constantinople, Kiev was tributary to the Khazars when the Varangians under Oleg established themselves there in 882.". Americana says: "The founding of Kiev has been placed in the second half of the 5th century, and the city's 1,500th anniversary was celebrated in May 1982". This pretty much sums it up. Lets not try to get any specific in what's not known even roughly. -Irpen 19:23, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Historical Summary in the lead

I think the expansion and revamping of this section is dove very well. Thanks Piotrus. Proposed changes:

Historically, Kiev is one of the most ancient and important cities of the region, the center of...

currently: [[Rus]] [[civilization]]...

suggested: [[Rus' (people)|Rus' civilization]]...

survivor of numerous wars, purges and genocides. Many historical and architectural landmarks are preserved or reconstructed in the city, which is thought to have existed as early as the 5th century A.D. With the exact time of city foundation being hard to determine, May 1982 was chosen to celebrate the city's 1,500th anniversary. During the eighth and ninth centuries Kiev was an outpost of the Khazar empire.

currently: At some point during the late ninth or early tenth century Kiev fell under the rule of Varangians and became the nucleus of the [[Rus]] polity. Until 1169 Kiev was the capital of the [[Kievan Rus']].

suggested: At some point during the late [[9th century|9th]] or early [[10th century]] Kiev fell under the rule of Varangians and became the nucleus of the [[Etymology of Rus and derivatives|Rus']] polity, which became known as Kievan Rus'.

From 1362 it was part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and from 1569 a part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569, as a capial of Kijów Voivodship...

currently: In 17th century it was annexed into the Muscovy (later Russian Empire).

suggested: In 17th century it fell under the Muscovy (later Russian Empire). (It seems to me "annexed" doesn't fit, see Treaty of Andrusovo).

I am not sure that 'fell under' is a good expression in English. Perhaps 'eventually annexed' would be better? It was eventually annexed, wasn't it? Although I admit I am no specialist in non-PLC history, and I compiled this lead mostly from the article's own history section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the term "annexed" applies here well. The EB's lead to "annexation" article calls it: "a formal act whereby a state proclaims its sovereignty over territory hitherto outside its domain. Unlike cession, whereby territory is given or sold through treaty, annexation is a unilateral act made effective by actual possession and legitimized by general recognition.. Other ref sources also have an emphasis that annexation usually means the more forceful, more uniletaral taking posession of the territory. In view of series of conflicts and treaties (Pereyaslav, above mentioned Andrusovo and the "Eternal Peace Treaty"), "annexation" seems to strong. Perhaps we should just say "fell under" Muscovy. -Irpen 19:27, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

An important Russian industrial revolution in the late 19th century, Kiev became the capital of several short-lived Ukrainian states following the turbulent period of Russian Revolution and Polish-Soviet War. From 1921 the city was

currently: part of the Soviet Union, until becaming the capital of idependent Ukraine following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

suggestion: ..part of the Soviet Union, since 1934 as a capital of Soviet Ukraine. It now remains the capital of Ukraine, independent since 1991 following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I think suggested changes are non-controversial. If anyone disagrees, please raise your objections here. I will wait for comments before introducing this. Thanks! -Irpen 17:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I am glad you like the expanded lead. Note that I have done the same with Minsk, so you may want to correct it there as well. If this meets with approvement, perhaps expantion, rather then reverts, will became the standard in those city-names cases :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's hope it will be so. I responded to "annexation" part within the text above and will look at Minsk later. -Irpen 19:27, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Treaty of Pereyaslav

A picture caption in the article: "Rainbow", a monument in commemoration of 375 anniversary of the Treaty of Pereyaslav.

According to the Treaty of Pereyaslav article, the 375th anniversary would be in 2029...

Is it maybe 350th? (-Erath)

It's 325. Corrected, sorry, my mistake. -Irpen 15:58, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)