Talk:Kharkiv Collegium

translation

--IgorTurzh (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 2 May 2022

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: it appears that the system has eaten my close, probably due to its inclusion of a permalink, so I will rewrite it here. Move wars are understood to be disruptive. The original move could have been undone under the rules at WP:RMUM, but otherwise moves should not be made or remade during open move requests, particularly by involved editors. There is clear disagreement as to the best title for this article. However, there has never been a stable title since this article was created as Kharkiv Collegium last month. According to WP:TITLECHANGES, if a title " has never been stable... and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be," then we should "default to the title the article had when the first major contribution after the article ceased to be a stub was made." That was Kharkiv Collegium. In the future, it is fine to introduce a new move request if there is evidence in support of changing the name, but building consensus in favor of a move should take place before instating a preferred form of the title or editing all instances of the name in the article text. Unilateral moves must be avoided and may be considered disruptive. Dekimasuよ! 06:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Kharkov Collegium → Kharkiv Collegium – The article has recently been renamed without a discussion, and the term Kharkiv has been replaced throughout the text. Looking at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Ukrainian_places)#Second-level_divisions, I see no reason why Kharkiv Collegium should have been changed. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Favonian (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I’ve moved it back to the original title, as it should stay at the uncontroversial title if there is no consensus to support the move. —Michael Z. 22:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry for late reply, I'm a bit busy at the moment, here are five reasons: 1) the title Kharkov Collegium is used on Kharkov's official website (see: http://www.collegium.kharkov.ua); 2) A quick search indicates that the title "Kharkov Collegium" is currently used in a majority of sources; 3) the Collegium existed only in the Russian Empire, it means that the Collegium historically belonged to the Kharkov Governorate of the Russian Empire (now Kharkiv Oblast, Ukraine); 4) all the founders of the Collegium have a connection to the history of modern-day Russia: Epiphanius belonged to the Diocese of Belgorod, Mikhail Golitsyn belonged to Russian aristocratic family (see House of Golitsyn); 5) the official language in the Collegium was Russian (it is written in all reliable sources since Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron to the modern books of Prof. Lyudmila Posokhova from the Karazin University), while the Ukrainian language was never used in contemporary documents: for this reason alone it seems at least logical to use the Russian transliteration as forthcoming. Of course, the name "Kharkiv Collegium" must remain present, since Kharkiv is a part of Ukraine and the historiographical tradition of Ukraine must also be presented in detail. Ушкуйник (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  1) That’s false. The website is Ukrainian-language only (the English pages are practically an empty template) but at the bottom of each is the text “© IVMO "Kharkiv Collegium", 2008-2022. All rights reserved.” 2) That’s false. A Google Books search of English-language sources, restricted to the 21st century, returns 249 to 31 results in favour of “Kharkiv Collegium.” 3, 4 & 5) These do not relate to naming guidelines: I could easily show a bunch of strong connections to Ukrainian language. The presentation of factoids push the limits of assuming good faith, since this editor well knows that neither Ukrainian nor Russian-language use in the Russian empire doesn’t have anything to do with our English-language naming (and that Ukrainian language was subject to colonial suppression from 1720). —Michael Z. 22:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Kharkiv Collegium  This is the WP:COMMONNAME (see evidence links above). It is also WP:CONSISTENT with the main article Kharkiv. —Michael Z. 22:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
  • 1) There is an official Ukrainian website dedicated to the history of the college; it is written there that the name of the collegium is "Kharkov Collegium" (See the link: http://www.collegium.kharkov.ua) Moreover, in the text on the history of the college on the same website it is written: "The collegium belonged to the number of outstanding educational institutions of the 18th century. It was an exemplary school in the south of Russia (i.e. Russian Empire), the first after the Kiev Academy" .
  • Furthermore, the title "Kharkov Collegium" (in English) figures on the official website of the Kharkiv City Council (www.city.kharkov.ua): "The Kharkov Collegium (the Slavic and Latin school which was transferred in 1726 from Bielgorod got this title in 1731) became the second in importance in Ukraine after Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. [...] etc."
  • 2) Let’s open Google. The results in Google are the following: "Kharkov Collegium" (in English → 6.940 results), „Харьковский коллегиум" (in Russian → 9.500 results), „Kharkiv Collegium“ (in English → 6.740 results) and "Харківський колегіум" (in Ukrainian → 6.470 results).
  • 3) The founders of the Collegium were Russian patrons from the noble Golitzyn family (see the House of Golitsyn) and it is useless to doubt. The title "Kharkiv Collegium" contains only a reference to modern-day Ukrainian pronunciation, while the title "Kharkov Collegium" contains a direct reference to the historical name of the school and to the Kharkov Governorate of the Russian Empire. In fact, the title should correspond to the historical division of the country, otherwise we have an anachronism. It is a clear historical principle. For example: In the essay about Arthur Schopenhauer we don't see that he was born in Gdańsk just because that city is part of Poland today, it is clearly written Danzig (i.e. with view to the historical epoch and it is absolutely right). What makes the difference in the case of Kharkiv?
  • 4) It is written in the text of the Collegium's founding that the Russian language was the official language of the Collegium. The Ukrainian language was never (at least officially) used in the history of the Collegium. For this reason alone, the Russian transliteration must be used as forthcoming. If necessary, I can quote you the document of the establishment of the college in the original.
  • 5) The last argument directly concerns the encyclopedias on which the article in Wikipedia is supposed to be based. According to them, Kharkov Collegium is a Russian educational center of the 18th century. It is clear that the city of Kharkiv is part of Ukraine today, but it is irrelevant to the history of education in the Russian Empire and the studies of modern specialists such as Prof. Posokhova, Prof. Lyubzhin, etc. prove that the spelling "Kharkov Collegium" predominates in research literature. Ушкуйник (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

    1) No, the English spelling Kharkov does not appear on any of those pages. The Russian-language pages of the school’s promotional website are not a WP:RS on English-language naming, although it does use Kharkiv at the bottom of its English-language pages. The site of Kharkov city is not an RS on this either. 2) Google Web Search results are not an RS, and not a measure of usage in RS’s, per WP:SET. Google Books results show the opposite, as I mentioned above. 3) Doesn’t matter for title spelling in English-language Wikipedia. Transcribing 19th-century imperial names verbatim would be an anachronism and an example of colonial WP:BIAS. 4) Doesn’t matter. But if you’re so concerned with official names, do you support re-titling Odessa to Odesa, or do you just want to Russify as many Ukrainian subjects as you can? 5) Those sources don’t use any English spellings because they’re in Russian.

    You’ve been at this for eight years, yet you still fight to Russify Ukrainian subjects with complete disregard for Wikipedia guidelines, basic logic, and the value of other editors’ time. Enough already. —Michael Z. 16:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 16 May 2022

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus; not moved. After another three weeks of discussion, we're still in the same place that we were when Dekimasu closed the RM above: minimal participation, more-or-less reasonable interpretations of policy on both sides, and no agreement. As such, there's no consensus at this time, meaning that the current title (Kharkiv Collegium) remains. Since over a month's worth of back-and-forth hasn't resulted in a consensus, I don't think it's likely that we're going to reach one anytime soon, so I'd discourage starting another RM before a reasonable time period (e.g. three to six months, at minimum) has elapsed. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

---

• Kharkiv Collegium → Kharkov Collegium – The discussion was closed before we reached consensus. I wanted to write a detailed answer but I was in a trip for three days. Please consider this request as part of the discussion that ended unexpectedly. Today I am writing a detailed comment on the last reply of my opponent. Ушкуйник (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• These lines are to be observed as an answer to the argumens of Michael Z. from 12 May 2022.
• 1) "No, the English spelling Kharkov does not appear on any of those pages". — that's not true, the second link contains [the text in English] by Prof. Sergey Kudelko from the Karazin National University of Kharkov. The first link contains text in Russian only, that's true, but it is an official Ukrainian website dedicated to the history of the college and the name "Kharkov Collegium" (in English) is present in the website's name (see: http://www.collegium.kharkov.ua).
• 2) "Google Web Search results are not an RS." — the results in Google only demonstrate that the name "Kharkov Collegium" predominates on the Internet. "Google Books results show the opposite." — the problem lies in the fact that most of the special studies on the history of the Collegium are available only in Russian, since the Collegium existed only in the Russian Empire. It leads us directly to the question of which language the English title should be transliterated from.
• 3) "Transcribing 19th-century imperial names verbatim would be an anachronism and an example of colonial WP:BIAS". — on the contrary, it would be anachronistic to write Kharkiv in relation to the history of the Kharkov Governorate and the very name of the city Kharkov has nothing to do with colonialism. The name Kharkov is even used on the official webpage of the Ukrainian administration (see: https://www.city.kharkov.ua). The city of Kharkov belonged to the Grand Duchy of Moscow and the Kharkov Collegium existed only during the rule of the Russian Empire in the region. Even if someone has conquered the territory, what does it change for the history of education? Just for example: Let's take the University of Königsberg into account. The territory of the city Königsberg belonged to the Baltic peoples, then the region was conquered by the Germans. Now the territory is in Russia. If the university existed only during the rule of the German Empire in the region, it bears the German name regardless of which country the area of the university i.e. the region belongs today.
• 4) It is written in the text of the Collegium's founding that the Russian language was the official language of the Collegium. The Ukrainian language was never used in the history of the Collegium. Your reply: "Doesn’t matter". — Actually it is principle. The official language of the institute is the language we are supposed to use in the text of Lemma.
• 5) "Those sources don’t use any English spellings because they’re in Russian". — it's not entirely correct. Prof. Lyubzhin's study contains an abstract in English using the spelling "Kharkov Collegium". See: [1]. Prof. Posokhova from the Karazin University in Kharkov used the spelling "Kharkov Collegium" in her study: The world of things and the lifestyle of Kharkov Collegium rector Lavrentiy Kordet (Moscow 2013). The spelling "Kharkov Collegium" is also used in English in the modern essay from the European Journal of Contemporary Education, 2019, 8(4) [2]. Also in the history of the city of Kharkov by Prof. Kudelko, the spelling "Kharkov Collegium" is used in English. All of these examples demonstrate that the spelling "Kharkov Collegium" predominates in modern research literature devoted specifically to the history of the Collegium. Ушкуйник (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• And last, but not least: Regarding to your passage about "basic logic" in your reply from 12 May 2022 etc. This is purely an Ad hominem argument and has no bearing on the subject of the discussion. I am a professional historian who had the opportunity to hear the best specialists in the history of Ukraine in the Taras Schewtschenko University and not only there. I am a specialist in 18th century Slavic studies and all what I want is to improve the quality of Wikipedia. Modern politics is irrelevant to me. Best regards, Ушкуйник (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The long proposal has very little relation to Wikipedia guidelines like WP:TITLE, WP:PLACENAME, and WP:UAPLACE, or appropriate evidence as it’s outlined in WP:RS (i.e., RS’s on current English-language usage) and WP:SET. It remains that the current title is the WP:COMMONNAME (see my evidence links in the previous talk section). It is also WP:CONSISTENT with the main article Kharkiv and other content in category:Kharkiv and subcategories including category:History of Kharkiv, excepting a small number of subjects drawing on sources in the military genre. Please refer to my specific arguments on the prematurely closed RM above. Notably, attempts to Russify Ukrainian subjects based on arguments straight from the nineteenth-century Russian empire represent a complete rejection and reversal of the principles in WP:BIAS. —Michael Z. 14:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Three arguments you completely ignore:
  • 1) The spelling "Kharkov Collegium" is used in studies by modern specialists in the history of the collegium. See the studies of Prof. Ludmila Posokhova. Prof. Alexey Ljubzhin, Prof. Alfred Rieber etc. Arguments about the Imperial literature of the 19th century are irrelevant to current discussion: I've never used them.
  • 2) The official language of the College was Russian, so transliteration from Russian should be used. See the case of the University of Königsberg above.
  • 3) The use of modern Ukrainian names of cities in relation to the history of the Russian Empire is simply incorrect. See how the topographical questions in the Britannica have been resolved: e.g. in the article about Reinhold Glière the modern spelling Kyiv in reference to the history of the Russian Empire is used only in brackets [now Kyiv, Ukraine] [1]. We should also use the same principle in Wikipedia. It seems clear to me that we have fundamentally different opinions, so I think it would be important to hear an independent side. Best regards, Ушкуйник (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

    I have not ignored these.

    1. You picked out three specific sources. I have already pointed out that Google Books search of English-language sources, restricted to the 21st century, returns 249 to 31 results, or eight-to-one in favour of “Kharkiv Collegium,” clearly indicating the WP:COMMONNAME

       And favours “Kharkiv College” by 26 to 13 (2 to 1). Google Scholar favours “Kharkiv Collegium” by 124 to 99 (5 to 4), and “Kharkiv College” by 118 to 34 (7 to 2).

    2. “Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used”: WP:COMMONNAME. Furthermore, it’s a Ukrainian subject in Ukraine, and WP:UKR says that if there is no common name we fall back to romanized Ukrainian. Furthermore, intentionally indulging a colonial WP:BIAS from nineteenth-century imperialism flies in the face of decency and good judgment.

       But anyway, either spelling is an English translation of a foreign name, “official” or not. Whether a foreign sources says Харьков, Харків, or 哈爾科夫, we spell the translation Kharkiv, after the main article title.

    3. We are using modern English names. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia’s content guidelines and refer to them in your arguments. You are wasting all of our time by repeating arguments that go against them, yet again. If you have a problem with Wikipedia guidelines, I suggest you endeavour to change those guidelines on their talk pages.

       —Michael Z. 15:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

    • Google Books is not a panacea. Most of the mentions of the Kharkov/Kharkiv Collegium found in Google Books are unrelated to the subject of the article at all. There is a number of modern organizations in the city known as the College/Collegium. That is why it is principle to consider the special literature devoted to the history of education in the 18th century. Prof. Ludmila Posokhova. Prof. Alexey Ljubzhin, Prof. Alfred Rieber are specialists in Slavic Studies who studied the history of the Kharkov Collegium and they use the spelling Kharkov Collegium in English. For this reason, the spelling Kharkov Collegium should be preferred. Ушкуйник (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

      Only relevant Posokhova paper I can find online is Traditions of Kyiv Mohyla academy at Kharkiv collegium. Does she even write in English? —Michael Z. 16:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

      • I did some research: all writings by Prof. Posokhova are written in Russian and Ukrainian. In fact, both spellings (Kharkov and Kharkiv in English) are used in annotations to her studies. She uses the spelling "Kharkov Collegium" in abstracts to studies written in Russian (see for example her article: The world of things and the lifestyle of Kharkov Collegium rector Lavrentiy Kordet). However, the Ukrainian article "Traditions of Kyiv Mohyla academy at Kharkiv collegium" contains the spelling "Kharkiv Collegium". It is important to note that Prof. Posokhova usually uses the spelling Kharkiv in regard to modern-day Ukraine, but prefers the spelling Kharkov in regard to the history of the Kharkov college.
      • See for example the abstract to her study from 2022 in English "Kharkov Collegium / Kharkov Academy: A successful project of Epiphanius Tikhorskii, the Bishop of Belgorod" .
      • I quote the English-language text of Prof. Posokhova (Karazin University of Kharkov): "The article introduces the decrees and other papers of Epiphanius Tikhorskii, the bishop of Belgorod,related to the establishment of the Kharkov Collegium in the 1720s.The decrees indicate that the bishop had a clear plan of action for establishing the Collegium, including ideas on how to obtain the necessary resources and deal with the government. The educational model he implemented at the Collegium did not follow governmental decrees and policies, but rather reflected the bishop's own experiences and preferences, as well as the local cultural and educational traditions, and mirrored the model of Jesuit colleges. As a result, the Kharkov Collegium as it emerged by the early 1730s thanks to the efforts of Tikhorskii and his supporters turned out to be one of the most successful educational projects in the Russian Empire in the eighteenth century both in terms of the breadth of its curriculum and its scale (the size of the student body and economic resources amassed by the school)."
      • In modern English-language studies based on the research of Prof. Posokhova, the spelling "Kharkov Collegium" is common. See the European Journal of Contemporary Education, 2019, 8(4). The English-language studies of Alfred Rieber, Colum Leckey (professor in the History department at Piedmont Virginia), the studies of Prof. Dr. Habil. Marina Ritzarev et al. contain only the spelling "Kharkov Collegium".
      • Prof. Lyubzhin uses the spelling "Kharkov Collegium" in all abstracts to his studies.
      • Dr. Svitlana Kahamlyk from the National Taras-Schewtschenko-University of Kiev writes her studies on the history of education in the Baroque period in Ukrainian, though she uses the spelling "Kharkov Collegium" in annotations in English. See her article "Харківський культурно-просвітницький осередок у контексті діяльності українських архієреїв (XVIII ст.)" and the abstract to the text in "Вісник Нац. техн. ун-ту "ХПІ" : зб. наук. пр. Темат. вип. : Історія науки і техніки. – Харків : НТУ "ХПІ". – 2011. – № 64. – С. 63-71.".
      • In summary: Both spellings can be met in modern-day works. However, most specialists on the history of the Collegium prefer the spelling Kharkov Collegium, i.e. the historical spelling. And we're not only talking about Russian and Ukrainian authors, but also about reputable American professors like Alfred J. Rieber, Colum Leckey et al. Ушкуйник (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom and WP:GDANSK. —  AjaxSmack  02:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Please explain. That discussion doesn’t mentions the Kharkiv Collegium nor the city of Kharkiv. But its precedent seems to support the idea that there should be a discussion and consensus established before using a different name for the city different articles, and until then to follow the standard practice of using the main article title. —Michael Z. 16:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  ​Sorry, a better case is Tsaritsyn/Stalingrad//Volgograd which is mentioned specifically in the WP:TITLECHANGES policy page and elaborated on at WP:CONSUB. Wikipedia uses the titles such as Battle of Tsaritsyn, Battle of Stalingrad and December 2013 Volgograd bombings that follow the name city at the time of the event. The same with institutions such as Academic Gymnasium Danzig vs. Medical University of Gdańsk. Examples within Ukraine include Stanisławów Ghetto (Ivano-Frankivsk), Academy of Foreign Trade in Lwów (Lviv), 2012 Dnipropetrovsk explosions (Dnipro) and Kharkov Theological Seminary (1840–1917) (Kharkiv) —  AjaxSmack  17:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  But 1) this sounds like a discussion for talk:Kharkiv, because there is no consensus to use different spellings for the city, and 2) Kharkiv was never renamed: we just use a particular spelling of the two common ones. I presume some of those examples might be a result of the common name of the specific institution or event (the last was just created by the other participant here), but I have demonstrated above that the commonly used name of this institution in reliable sources is Kharkiv Collegium. —Michael Z. 18:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  And see Talk:Lviv University of Trade and Economics#merger proposal. —Michael Z. 18:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  "But 1) this sounds like a discussion for talk:Kharkiv, because there is no consensus to use different spellings for the city" — There is no question that Kharkov Governorate existed in the Russian Empire. For this reason alone it is clear that the spelling Kharkov should be used in reference to the collegium that existed only in the Russian Empire.

  1) "Kharkiv was never renamed: we just use a particular spelling of the two common ones" — Gdansk/Danzig is also the same name (same as in case Lwów/Lvov/Lviv), there is no difference in the situation; 2) the commonly used name of this institution in reliable sources is Kharkov Collegium and I proved it with concrete examples from the modern research literature. Ушкуйник (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Gdańsk and Danzig are different native Latin-alphabet names, and their usage in Wikipedia is guided by the specific vote mentioned above. The Kharkiv situation is different.

  WP:COMMONNAME and WP:SET describe how to present evidence for a commonly used name. I have done that to a degree and you have not. —Michael Z. 23:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  "Gdańsk and Danzig are different names" — Before claiming something like that, I would recommend reading about the etymology of the word. There is no difference in the situation at all. I proved that all modern spealists in the history of the Collegium use the spelling Kharkov Collegium as common. I even proved that this spelling is preferred by specialists with different citizenships and political backgrounds (Russians, Ukrainians, Americans) and you only saw statistics from Google.Books. You even ignored the fact that the statistics refer to different organizations and now you talk about "reliable sources". The only thing that matters are the studies of specialists in the subject of the article and I have demonstrated all of these in my literature research.

  There are also other analogies to the example Gdańsk/Danzig as well. See, for example, the case of Chernigov/Czernihów/Chernihiv. Based on the epoch, there are articles like Principality of Chernigov, Chernigov Regiment revolt, Czernihów Voivodeship, Chernigov Governorate, Chernihiv Oblast etc. So, as the user The Impartial Truth rightly pointed out in another discussion, there is always a distinction between the historical names and the modern names of cities. Ушкуйник (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

“Belgorod Collegium”

Neither “Belgorod Collegium”[1][2] nor Russian “Белгородский коллегиум”[3][4] appear in any sources. The school didn’t get the status of college/collegium until years after it left Belgorod. I’m removing that name from the lead, pending support that it was used. —Michael Z. 17:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• See: Everyman's Encyclopaedia. Ernest Franklin Bozman. Vol. 7. University of Minnesota 1967. P. 323. To be objective, I changed the word collegium to the word school. Ушкуйник (talk) 10:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

  Can you quote the relevant passage? Google doesn’t give me access, and I can only find the 1914 edition which says “K. College, founded 1721 in Belgorod, transferred to K. 1726; University. founded 1805.”[5] Some other sources don’t give a formal name for this period, but only refer to it generically as “the Belgorod school,” a seminary, seminary school, eparchial seminary, or theological seminary.[6][7] —Michael Z. 17:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)