Talk:Folkstsaytung (Kyiv)

Requested move 28 September 2020

Folkstsaytung (Kiev) → Folkstsaytung (Kyiv) – In this title, "(Kiev)" isn't part of the name of the publication, it is a disambiguator to distinguish the Folkstsaytung published in Kyiv, Ukraine from the Folkstsaytung published in Warsaw, Poland. Since the Kiev->Kyiv RM, we now refer to the city as "Kyiv" not "Kiev", and thus the disambiguator should be "Kyiv", not "Kiev". Alternative proposal: Folkstsaytung (Ukraine). Lev!vich 16:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'd propose we keep the discussion centralized at Talk:Kyiv. Clear, at this stage, there is a wide rejection of applying the spelling 'Kyiv' retroactively. The city was known as 'Kiev' in English at the time (and, generally speaking, this is still the most common name). 'Kyiv' is useless as disambiguator, since this is not a name known by English speakers. --Soman (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • this is however a name used by the article Kyiv, so it is counterintuitive to use another name--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support  Parenthetic disambiguation is to help our readers find their article. It is not content in a “historical article,” but it is functional copy, like a paper encyclopedia’s index at the back and the running heads at the top corner of each page. It will appear in various category and article listings (in this case, Mass media in Kiev which is currently considered for renaming to Kyiv, Publications disestablished in 1919, Publications established in 1917, Yiddish socialist newspapers, and Bundism). The disambiguation keyword should be the most widely recognized and simplest one that identifies this particular Folkstsaytung from any other. Not the “historical” domain-specific “Kiev,” but the broadest disambiguating context, and the name of our main article Kyiv. Relevant guidelines are wp:Article titles#Disambiguation (“use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any”), and wp:DAB#Naming the specific topic articles (“use only as much additional detail as necessary”).  ¶ Also consider this as a precedent or pattern: in the future do we want to haggle over the use of Kiev and Kyiv as two separate disambiguation words, when 1) the usage is changing, and 2) they will risk conflicting and overlapping with each other, and 3) all or most of the hierarchy in Category:Kyiv is about to be renamed?  ¶ Regarding using Ukraine instead, do we know this was the only Folkstsaytung ever published in Ukraine? —Michael Z. 20:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per op. blindlynx (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. As is stated above, the purpose of the disambiguator is to help readers find the article they're looking for. And since "Kiev" is the more recognizable English spelling of the city to most English speakers/readers, that's what should be used. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia changed the main article of the city to Kyiv. There is no arguing about recognition when this article keeping "Kiev" creates a consistency issue.--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• The argument is that the decision to change the spelling of the main article title was based on usage in reliable sources. The disambiguator isn't about usage in reliable sources, it's about what spelling is most recognizable to the average reader of the English Wikipedia. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Having disambiguator be different from the name of the city that is used in the main article based, as you said, on reliable sources, defeats the purpose and goes against consistency of this very encyclopedia--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• But, and this is pretty clear from the Talk:Kyiv, there was absolutely no consensus to apply the 1995 name change retroactively. Likewise we don't apply names like Mumbai or Istanbul before those names were adopted. --Soman (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• This is not a retroactive change, as the article's name merely denotes the geographic location, not the time period it was published in, so instead a consistency must be kept, as it is in other articles on this site.--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

  Istanbul is not a variant spelling of Constantinople, it is a different name. Why do you propose treating Kyiv differently from Beijing after its 1979 name change? Look at the article titles in Category:History of Beijing as an example. There is no “apply retroactively” apart from a handful of independently established proper names. —Michael Z. 18:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• • • 'Beijing' was adopted earlier for domestic use, but promoted internationally from 1979. Using 'Beijing' earlier than 1979, and especially earlier than 1958 is dubious. I use 'Peking' when working on articles on that period, such as in 1964 split in the Communist Party of India. But Peking/Beijing is not exactly analogous to Kiev/Kyiv, the Beijing case is a debate on different methods of Romanization, whilst the political rationale for the Kiev/Kyiv shift is that the former is perceived as originating from Russian and the latter from Ukrainian. --Soman (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

      Peking and Beijing are from romanization systems based on Cantonese and two different Mandarin spoken dialects. Both are native to China but Mandarin is the official dialect. Indeed, Kyiv is based on Ukrainian, a language that had status in Ukraine since 1917, was spoken by tens of millions but officially subordinated until Perestroika and Hlasnist in about 1989. WP:BIAS has something to do with why many people still call the USSR “Russia,” can’t find Ukraine or Kyiv on a map, and are so attached to the colonial spelling Kiev, as opposed to the general acceptance of Beijing in Wikipedia. Why did you have to go all the way to India? Don’t they use Peking in articles about China? —Michael Z. 20:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

      Sorry, Peking is from Chinese postal romanization which is based on the phonetics of the Nanjing dialect of Mandarin, instead of Beijing pronunciation. —Michael Z. 18:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

      • So you admit that the Kyiv/Kiev name change drive has a political purpose? --Soman (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Only if you consider opposing WP:BIAS as a political purpose. blindlynx (talk) 08:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

“Drive” by whom? The anti-Kyiv editors? Are you “admitting” you don’t care about wp:systemic bias? Are you “admitting” you don’t want the spelling Kyiv to be accepted the same way as Beijing for some reason?  ¶ Your victorious “gotcha” does not help us work on Wikipedia. —Michael Z. 23:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

You never heard of KyivNotKiev? I'd say that the campaign to replace 'Kiev' with 'Kyiv' in English is, well, a campaign. As to the arguments of bias and colonialism - no, equating Russian-Ukrainian relations and say British-Indian relations doesn't work. Kiev was very much a city of the Russian empire, Folkstsaytung was at the on-set the publication of the South Russian Bureau of the Bund. As pointed out in the Talk:Kyiv discussion non-Ukrainian parties dominated the 1917 vote in the city. In fact it appears that no other major city had such a strong showing of the Russian monarchist right-wing as Kiev did. --Soman (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nomination, Michael Z., Ortizesp and blindlynx. Taking into account that the main title header of English Wikipedia article delineating the Ukrainian capital is Kyiv, it would be indeed counterintuitive to use the past form "(Kiev)" as the parenthetical qualifier within this article's main header. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a historical article. Incidentally, Yiddish transliterates the city as "Kiev", not Kyiv. Walrasiad (talk) 06:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

This Kiev/Kyiv in the name of the article is a geographic denominator, and since the city itself is called Kyiv on this site, so should this article for consistency. Yiddish language argument is irrelevant as the city's name was not part of the publication's name.--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 08:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

It would be 'Kiekhkh'. blindlynx (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. When the newspaper was published, the city was called Kiev. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The city is called Kyiv on this site, and even the city's article itself uses "Kyiv" when refering to early 20th century period of its history. The city was never renamed, and this is a spelling change on this site. This is not about a historical usage, such as ruler's title (Olga of Kiev) or battle (Battle of Kiev (1941)), this is a geographic specification, therefore the now-accepted Kyiv should be used for disambiguation and to avoid inconsistency.--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, this is a 1917-19 newspaper, published in Kiev. It is no longer extant. You're just trying to side-step and re-argue the historical use of Kiev/Kyiv that's already being discussed at Talk:Kyiv. You're adding nothing new to the discussion here. Walrasiad (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, the city of Kyiv was never renamed, and both Kyiv and History of Kyiv use "Kyiv" when describing early 20th century period of city's history. Using any other name is inconsistent, and this article is as of now one of the few using the old spelling in disambiguation.--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh boy. So you are just intent on re-arguing something here that didn't fly at Talk:Kyiv? I am not interested in revisiting that here. Either take it to Talk:Kyiv again, or come up with something more concrete. Walrasiad (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Unless you are going to convince everyone to change all other articles that have (Kyiv) as geographic disambiguator, I don't see why this is an argument at all. And don't act all smug and unprofessional, this is counterintuitive on this website.--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - None of this discussion about Folkstsaytung being a historical newspaper is relevant, because "(Kiev)" is not part of the title of the newspaper. It's a disambiguator. We don't use disambiguators that match the time period of the article they are disambiguating. For example, it's El Tiempo (Istanbul) and Guozijian (Beijing), not El Tiempo (Constantinople) and Guozijian (Peking) (Kuo-tzu-chien (Peking) is a redirect). We have three titles that use (Peking), all redirects [1]. 24 titles that use (Constantinople), all of them redirects except two, which are articles about parts of the ancient city of Constantinople [2]. We have 34 titles using (Kyiv) already [3]. OK, big finish: 49 titles using (Kiev), and they are all redirects except for this one [4]. That's why we shouldn't use "(Kiev)" for a disambiguator, instead we should use "(Kyiv)", per WP:CONDAB and WP:CONSISTENT. Lev!vich 18:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • As the creator of El Tiempo (Istanbul), I'd point out that the history of that publication stretches from both Ottoman and Turkish Republic periods, and that the opening passage of the article says it was published in "Constantinople/Istanbul". --Soman (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
    • And a reader looking for more about the city might follow the first link, whereat the first words are “This article is about the historical city from 330 to 1453.” I sincerely suggest that “Istanbul (Constantinople)” would be better there. —Michael Z. 20:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
      • El Tiempo's existence stretches past 1923, when the English name was changed to Istanbul. This one doesn't go past 1919. Not even close to comparable. Walrasiad (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
        • 1930, not 1923. El Tiempo ceased publication in 1930. Names of Istanbul: Names other than استانبول (İstanbul) had become obsolete in the Turkish language after the establishment of the Republic of Turkey [29 October 1923]. However, at that point Constantinople was still used when writing the city's name in Latin script. In 1928, the Turkish alphabet was changed from the Arabic to the Latin script. Beginning in 1930, Turkey officially requested that other countries use Turkish names for Turkish cities, instead of other transliterations to Latin script that had been used in the Ottoman times. Lev!vich 23:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
          • Still within the time frame. By contrast, 1919 is nowhere near 1995. But if that really bugs you, we can do an RM to move "El Tiempo (Constantinople)", and see how that goes. Walrasiad (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
            • "El Tiempo (Constantinople)" would violate WP:CONDAB just like "Folkstsaytung (Kiev)". Lev!vich 23:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
              • I disagree. It's sufficiently within the timeframe to allow Istanbul, but we can put it for RM, if you'd like. Publications and bibiographies distinguish by place of imprint at time of publication, e.g. we refer to the Soviet magazine Zvedza as published in Leningrad, not St. Petersburg. Kant's works were published in Konigsburg, not Kaliningrad. If a publication overlaps in time frame, then we can take the more modern version. But there is no overlap here. Folkstsaytung was published in Kiev in 1917-1919, and that's how all the secondary sources refer to it. Not only is it historical usage, its RS usage. I don't see a reason to make the article title less recognizable to readers who might be looking for it. Walrasiad (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
                • This is about a parenthetical disambiguator. We don't use "(Leningrad)" or "(Konigsburg)" as a parenthetical disambiguator for any article (just one redirect for Leningrad). Lev!vich 01:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
                  • By happenstance. We don't use many parenthetical disambiguators period - especially not locations (WP:NCDAB urges us to avoid proper nouns in parenthesis). So there are not many examples to draw from. It seems in this case a proper noun might not be avoidable (BTW, this article is missing a hatnote to the other Folkstsaytung article). But the guidance should still be recognizability and usefulness to readers. Adding "(Kiev)" helps general readers who come to it via Yiddish or early 20th Century literature, since that is how their RS's will refer to it, and that's how they will recognize it. And readers of Wikipedia are more important than the peculiar preferences of editors. Walrasiad (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Dozens of articles use "(Kyiv)" as a parenthetical disambiguator [5], so it's not that rare. Only this one uses "(Kiev)". Lev!vich 02:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Ugh. There's a lot of bad article titling there. Anyway, not "dozens", but about twenty, several of which should be changed to "X, Kyiv" or parenthesis omitted entirely since they are already unique. Anyway, there's a reason we're using "(Kiev)" rather than "(newspaper founded 1917)" or "(Rafes's newspaper)" as disambiguator - no, it is not to satisfy the vanity of Ukrainian nationalists, it is because that's what makes it easier for readers to recognize and find. And that takes priority. "(Kyiv)" does not achieve that, since RS's do not use that in reference to this newspaper. It was published in Kiev in 1917-1919, and that is how it is referenced and referred to. Walrasiad (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
    • The article is necessarily for people who refer to Wikipedia, and not necessarily for people who have read the reliable sources about this newspaper. —Michael Z. 02:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Please let's skip the "vanity of Ukranian nationalists" stuff, it brings down the quality of the discussion. I'm not sure if there are any Ukranian nationals here, but I'm sure no one participating in this RM is a Ukranian nationalist. Lev!vich 02:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)