Talk:Kharkiv

Archives

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukrainian subdivisions. Irpen 20:23, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

---

Summary of older discussions:

• Archive 2004-2009
• Archive 2010-2012

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: [1] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)