Talk:Khreschatyk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Talk:Khreschatyk/Archive01 | Talk:Khreschatyk/Archive02

Contents

[edit] Pictures

I'm a newbie still inable to manage images. Even if I start hurriedly learning right now, it would be late for DYK. So let me list the links to the images I found on other pages and Wikicommons.



Take a look at these two. Do you like any of them?--Bryndza 04:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)



The two latter seem to be of priority (the others concentrate on Maidan which has its own article).

I think we should between to fit DYK first. I'll provide clear detailed signatures if someone uploads the files. Ukrained 23:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

My mistake:

uk:Image:Kiev 9.jpg (view from Maidan southwards)


Two pictures added. Anything else? I don't know of that legend, Irpen. --Bryndza 04:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, this is the best-informative pic of the street. Could we somehow get it from there? (I mean that is a Wiki site too). Ukrained 20:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ukrained, I agree with your opinion that the pic is the most representative. The copyright message from the site allows the usage provided the attribution to wek.kiev.ua is given. I say, use it at wiki, tag the image GFDL and provide the link like we do with images from sk.vlasenko.com (see for instance Image:Pochaev.jpg) at the site's author request. --Irpen

OK, I loaded the image and added to the article. The other two will also be useful, I think. I will do them later if no one does them by then. Cheers all, --Irpen 09:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

WHich of the old images with the tram is better?


--Irpen 04:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

How about this variation and isn't the original suppposed to be good old PD-SU rather than GFDL? But anyway I like the first one - it shows the tram prominently, though disapointing resolution–Gnomz007(?) 07:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The leading paragraph

In my opinion, the leading paragraph is a sort of "visiting card" of the article. It should giv the reader a link to what he or she likely knows. This was Maidan Nezalezhnosti what everybody in the West watched every day during two weeks of Orange Revolution on TV. This is likely the most famous part of the street. The article would benefit if Maidan Nezalezhnosti is mentioned in th eleading paragraph.

The fact that the street was heavily destroyed during WWII is important, but it hardly belong to the leading paragraph. It should be considered in the "History" section.

I propose all interested editors to express their opinion about this issue. Let's do not change the paragraph before the consensus is settled.--AndriyK 18:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Then you wait, because the entire article, including the lead was the result of a big cooperation of several editors. It was not just "heavily destroyed". It was totally destroyed, and, if you read further, it was a unique event in history. Propose you changes and wait for responses. Besides, list of Ukrainian states is too much for the article about one street. Only what is street related should be emphasized. Don't try to retell history of UA in every article about something Ukrainian. --Irpen 18:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The link to Maidan and the Orange Revolution is significant, but so is the destruction. The latter also explains the street's modern form; perhaps it can be tied into the architecture: "Khreschatyk features many buildings in the Stalinist architectural style, built after the street's almost total destruction during the Second World War". —Michael Z. 2006-01-11 18:58 Z
Hi, Michael! I have no doubt that the info about the distruction and rebuilt is important and should be considered in the apropriate sections about history and architecture.
But we are talking about the leading paragraph here, a sort of the "visiting card" of the article. I t should be written so that the reader could easily recognize what the article is about. Many streets in european cities were destroyed and rebuilt. But only one goes thrue the Maidan.--AndriyK 10:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The lead is not a "visit card" but a brief summary of the article with the most relevant info from it put together. The rest is explained below. --Irpen 17:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Где у Карла Маркса такое написано? ;)--AndriyK 17:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Constructively, I disagree that destruction (totally destroyed is also very relative definition) of Khrescatyk durind WWII is "unique event in history". Remember Warsaw? And what about some German cities? Stalingrad? So I suggest to remove this sentence from the leading paragraph completely. Better to add another 1-2 sentences on ethymology or any kind of "general" info.--Bryndza 22:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
(Moved by me--AndriyK 17:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC))

As to me, the number of buildings at Khrescatyk (derived from the biggest address No.) as well as most important buildings (like City Council House, Central Post Office etc.) is more important than what you are fighting here for. There is NOTHING on it in the leading paragraph. What streets consist of?--Bryndza 21:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The link about the demolishing (in the end of the article) speaks about over 300 buildings being destroyed. Hard to tell how many building are there now. I don't think it matters a great deal. The street is rather short and there are certainly streets with more buildings. --Irpen 21:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure there are. I did not mean to demonstrate that Khrescatyk is "longest and ..." at it is there alredy. But just thinking of main characteristics that lay in basis of concept "street"... Is architecture. And we have FULL ONE SENTENCE of it in introduction. Great. --Bryndza 22:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of Jan 11, 2006, 19:01 revert

Irpen, I would like to remind you something publicly as you are moderator. If you personally dislike some editors, then express it to them in personal messages (if you find it appropriate). Othervise your tone toward SOME editors in WP (like in the paragraph above) resebmles style of some OTHER editors from this corner of WP. We all know both sides.--Bryndza 22:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


Bryndza, I am not a moderator. Moreover, sometimes, although not so often I hope, my words could use moderation but I do consider myself a moderate on most hot-button issues. Now, to the topic, I think I showed repeatedly that I separate my treatment of AndriyK's edits from my personal opinion of his past behavior. Not once, I offered him to move on, despite his anti-myself crusade, and not once he bit my hand stretched to him in an offer to put those differences behind (see for instances [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and much more).

AndriyK pointed out to the obvious factual error in the article and I immediately corrected it. He himself, however, didn't bother to correct the error he saw because Conservatory/Philhramonic confusion is devoid of ideology. Instead he made a significant change in the lead in accordance with his own ideological priorities. Now, let me assure you that I also supported the Orange Revolution, as you could see, for instance, from my edits to the OR article. However, it seemed to me (and I maybe wrong but still) that the article is about the street, not the History of Ukraine. The destruction of an entire street may not be unique in the WW2, but the extent of the Khreschatyk destruction as well as the means how it was destroyed stand out and this is street specific. Take a look at the ru-lang ref in the end of the article.

AndriyK in his edit elaborated on the list of Ukrainian states of the 1917-19 and added the OR to the lead, which is an all-Ukrainian rather than Khreschatyk event. I could see it in the lead of Maidan's article or V.A.Yu's article but not the street article. Now, I may be wrong but note that the lead crystallized after many edits of many editors. Then comes AndriyK and makes these changes without proposing them, at least. Also, as you know, English is not my native language and to write in a way that the article has a reasonable text flow takes much effort from me. And even then I go to Michael's talk, asking him to go over my work. The article got the DYK prominence where it represented our country and I cared about its style too. Now comes an editor and makes several significant alterations single-handily.

I spent time to elaborate in detail on this reversion by me of AndriyK only to make it clear that I had specific article-related reasons and it has nothing to do to my personal sentiments to this editor. You may note that at his arbitration I did not agitate for his ban either ( [8], [9]). I wanted the damage undone (bad-faith-redirects and results of a rigged voting) and a ruling that would prevent that in the future. If he edits, now or in a month, I will consider each of his edits separately from anything that happened in the past. --Irpen 04:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Times of revolutionary unrest

Either all armies should be listed, or none.--AndriyK 09:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No reason to list all armies. This is not history or UA article. Brevity but enoigh info to give a clue. That exact names are unimportant for the street article. --Irpen 15:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Then the other armies are also unimportant.--AndriyK 17:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Please elaborate. I don't see your logic. Hetmanate, Directory can be correctly called under one common name "Several short-lived Ukrainian states". What's wrong with that? --Irpen 18:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

First, I find "Several short-lived Ukrainian states" scornful. Second, all sides should be treated equally. Either you list all of them, if you find it important, or you mention none in the opposite case. So this is your edits that are unlogical.--AndriyK 18:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This is factual and not "scornful". You can't make up a glorious history of Ukrainian independence only because you wish that it existed. They were short-lived and this is one of the most important characteristics of these states. This is not about equality of all sides. This is about informing the reader on who warred at the time that resulted in damaging the street. I am also unhappy that Ukrainian statehood didn't make it to last at the time, but these are true facts and there is nothing we can do about it. --Irpen 18:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You says that this article is about a street not about history. So you don't find place even to list Ukrainian states. On the other hand you do find place to characterize this states: whether they were long- or short lived. Don't you contradict yourself?--AndriyK 09:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It's no big deal really. If you really insist on listing rather obscure names, we can have them while I think they are not needed. My goal here is to have a nice article that may be made featured one day and its being about the street made me think that it is possible because we can keep political content low. Then you roam here and first thing you do is politicizing the intro. Now, regarding the post-revolutionary times. We don't need to go into details here but to give a reader a good clue of the fierce fhiting the street saw we list warring parties briefly. "Short-lived" is factual and important because it gives the reader some understanding about volatility of situation in Kiev of the time. OTOH, listing them all by names (Directory, Hetmanate) is excessive IMO and may bore the reader. Of course the reader interested in UA-history who would come to a history article needs to see the names but I don't see their need at Khreschatyk. --Irpen 16:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I see mentioning of the names is "excessive" but characterizing is "factual and important" (and all this are very much related to the article about a street).
Irpen, I have to say you once more: please stop using potentially neutral articles forpolitical purposes.
BTW, Maidan was mentioned in introduction by another user. Then you removed it without any discussion. What I did, just restored the sentence.--AndriyK 19:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Well if you want to make it neutral what is wrong with saying after a time of unrest and various conflicts that took place in the Russian civil War, Khreshcatyk...--Kuban kazak 19:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What you did was "restore a sentence" that was replaced long before with something directly relevant to the street rather than something related to the Ukrainian history in general. The user:DDima whose sentence I replaced by mine never complained, actually. So did others involved in the article development. That was until you joined the article which caused nothing but hassle except the factual correction (Philharmonic) that you found.However, being uninterested in non-ideological parts you didn't bother to correct it yourself. --Irpen

Is there anything more interesting specifically about Khreshchatyk during the revolution and following chaos? Rydz-Śmigły's parade is a good start, but this section barely justifies its own existence. Not something to bother edit-warring about. —Michael Z. 2006-01-31 06:09 Z

[edit] TsUM age

As far as I understood from here, TsUM was built before the war. Wasn't it? Ukrained 21:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

A good eye! Looks like you are right. I think in some of the refs already listed in the article, the houses that remain from pre-war are listed. --Irpen 22:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is my favorite (and mainly the only) shopping place :) Ukrained 22:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For Irpen

It was explained clearly on this talk what is more logical. Please read carefully and stop Pestering.--AndriyK 09:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For AndriyK

What's more logical? The entire history of Ukraine doesn't belong to the article about a single street in one Ukrainian city, even the capital, and this was explained above. That the street goes through the city center is more important for the reader interested in the streat than through which squares it goes as well. Andrew Alexander in a Russophobic urge purged Russian names, reverted the rest to AndriyK and called this a "clean up and style imrovement" in the edit summary. I kept his grammar corrections and simply undid the revertion. Where is pestering? Wikipedia:What_is_a_troll#Pestering, as per link you provided is "continual questions with obvious or easy to find answers". The example of pestering is here, but this was not my edit. --Irpen 18:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read the talk carefully and you'll find the answer to your questios.
Concerning the link: the relevance of Rusyns to Chernivtsi Oblast is completely unclear. Do you understand the difference between Bukovyna and Zakarpattia? Let's discuss this poin there.--AndriyK 09:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ukrainian People's Republic

If several people mind "several short-lived Ukrainian states" so much, why not just use "Ukrainian People's Republic forces" instead. I know it does not convey the idea that there was more than one and even more than two (I guess Soviet governments also count as combatants damaging the street's buildings). But well.–Gnomz007(?) 07:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Can here some personal insults? --Yakudza 21:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I would ask you not to do that and apologize for an ignorant comment.
Most probably I'm being very ignorant, but my ignorance also spans onto why Irpen insists on the phrasing, my guess is what that the link he puts points to the whole list of govenments of Ukraine at the time, Hetmanate included. I did not see that explained before so I asked, I beg to excuse my phrasing.
You would see none of my meddling in the matter if my comments are that bad.–Gnomz007(?) 22:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I've got a message from Yakudza, I see that I misconstrued his comment.
I think that the "short-lived" is indeed unpleasant and unneccessary, there must be another way to phrase that. –Gnomz007(?) 00:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What's unpleasant and unnecessary? We always tell each other "Just stick with facts!" Well, "short-lived" is a fact. It is not humiliating in any way except for those who like to pretend being offended in order to advance their POV ("Kiev" for Kyiv is a good example of an offensive word for them). This is not the History of Ukraine article for details about all these names and we cannot possibly retell the history of Ukraine in every article about something Ukrainian, like an article about one street in one city. "Short-lived" gives to the reader an understanding about the chaos of the time that brought the damage to the street. If the time is of "short-lived states", be sure to expect no stability and ruins. This is factual and brief. I see no reason to give in to blackmailing of people who pretend being offended purely for the POV reasons. --Irpen 04:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I maybe it is factual, but I think it would be better to find another epithet with less implications, "several eventually destroyed Ukrainian states". The selection of Hetmanate and Ukrainian People's Republic looks a little problematic since there were others, and this is indeed not History of Ukraine to measure importance of the armies based on contribution to the the future history. I was thinking about somenhing like "self-organized", but I see it does not quiete fit to include all, maybe just "Ukrainian forces".

I do not think people pretend being offended, they are offended for POV reasons. –Gnomz007(?) 05:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, Gnomz007 has very healthy thoughts. If you can not adequately listen to suggestions of "those who like to pretend being offended", then at least please listen to his explanation of the situation. Myself, I suggest to minimise "descriptive" part of this phrase (like short-living, self-organized etc.). May be it is better to just leave states (or synonims) without any definitions what kind of states. And link to History of Ukraine. The 20th century. Like this "several Ukrainian states in the 20th century" or "several Ukrainian state formations in the 20th century"--Bryndza 18:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If you insist, we can use the "Ukrainian state formations" and that would link to an UNR article, which actually goes over all of them. I think state formations is worse that "short-lived states" because what's the "formation" anyway? These were real state in many senses with certain legitimacy claims and some recognition too. We can as well say the "attempts of Ukrainian statehood" or something along these lines. What I find important is that it is clear to the reader how chaotic these times were because we are talking about the concurrent military conflicts that was ravaging the Ukrainian capital and the whole country and the empire, and that got this street heavily damaged. If you simply list the names of the states you don't relay this info to the reader and the names of the states themselves are important in the History of UA and other more global articles than this one, but not the history of a single street. Let me know what you think I would welcome any other proposals to formulate this. I explained my reasoning as well as I possibly could.
On another matter, the flag raising in front of the Kyivrada. Again, this is a very important event but details on it belong elsewhere, for instance to the Kyivrada article itself, the Flag of Ukraine article and some others. Therefore, I left only a mention here and moved the details to Kyivrada. The reasoning is the same. We cannot throw everything possible about Ukraine into all UA-related articles. If we want good articles, we should keep them on the subject. This is the article about the street and not a detailed account of every event that happened in Kiev or in Ukraine. These events are important to get covered but they have or should have their own article. Thanks, --Irpen 18:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No questions that states were legitimate and real. Therefore I lean more towards simple "several Ukrainian states in the 20th century". But I do not insist on it. This is my proposed compromise to remove "short-living". Others may have better ideas. My knowledge of English is limited.

As for "flag raising" - personally I did not notice any problem here. From the other hand, if there is necessity to include picture of metro station here, I think it should be mentioned clearly in the text. Something like "a metro station "Kreschatyk" has it's exit directly to the street". Also, I'm not sure if using "vestibule" in the signature of the station photo is correct. Isn't it used to define the interior of the building usually?--Bryndza 21:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I will write at Michael's talk to reuqest his help with English as soon as I can. --Irpen 22:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gnomz007 revert

It seems there are two versions and the sides ignore the other completely. When the differences grow, everyone will have progressively more problems so lets take it slow and get the diagreeable places fixed. I have chosen version of Irpen because it includes most of the stuff. –Gnomz007(?) 07:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but before reverting those 3RR team members I always make sure to include the useful edits they made. So, not everyone is deserving your "compeltely ignore the other side" comment. As for the rest, please read the talk above. I would welcome more contributions from uninvolved editors. --Irpen 08:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edit war

It looks like now we have the differences between:

among Ukrainian People's Republic, Bolshevik, Ukrainian Hetmanate, German, and Polish forces

and

among Bolshevik, German, and Polish forces, as well as the forces of several short-lived Ukrainian states

Thus, one version spells the name of two main short-lived Ukrainian states and leaves the others, and the second put a POV-word short-lived. I do not think the difference is terribly important. Maybe we should a have the last round of arguments from both parties and then a straw poll? abakharev 20:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's beein discussed, see: Talk:Khreschatyk#Times_of_revolutionary_unrest, Talk:Khreschatyk#Ukrainian_People.27s_Republic. If anyone has anything more to say, please go ahead by all means. --Irpen 20:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents:
First of all, this is a minor issue.
Second, the parts "as well as several short-lived Ukrainian republics" is a little biased, because it undermines the role of these republics. They should be listed in pair with other forces that controlled Kiev
Third, "only to be driven out" expresses some support for the latter force. I would say "unfortunately to be driven out" but that would be also biased. The words "only" or "unfortunately" should not be there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.84.5.47 (talk • contribs).
  1. It's very strange that all parties are listed, except Ukrainian states;
  2. I do not understand why Irpen does not find the plase for the names of the states, but find it to characterize them.
I asked it before, but Irpen usually prefers an edit war rather than a fair discussion.--AndriyK 21:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This above is a plain lie. Here I have answered that many times: [10], [11], [12], [13]. The user above, OTOH, returning to WP after a temporary absence did nothing but resumed the edit wars that he was waging during his previous sting here. Not a single edit but the revert. SO, what are those accusations about who "prefers an edit war rather than a fair discussion." --Irpen 21:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This is you who lies permanently. No answer to the above questions is given in your links.--AndriyK 15:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Please restrict the discussion to the subject. When an editor insults another, it can devolve into a bout of school-yard name-calling, wasting everyone's time. This is why civility is an official policy. —Michael Z. 2006-03-10 17:35 Z
[edit conflict] I'm not exactly sure what exactly the issue is (what is POV about "short-lived Ukrainian states"?), and I'm too lazy to review the old discussion, but how about simplifying the wording to "Ukrainian, Bolshevik, German, and Polish forces"? The details are explained in some other non-street-related articles.
On a related note, we really need an article about Ukraine in the Russian Revolution to link to [hint, hint]. —Michael Z. 2006-03-09 21:53 Z

Michael, just click on the diffs above and you will see the explanation. I gave those diffs to make things easier for those too busy to review the old discussions. Much of the article you propose you already wrote in the UNR article. We could expand that and move to a new title, while UNR article would just tell what it was and refer to another one. It is imposible to speak of UNR separately from Hetmanate, Rada as well as Bolshevik and Polish invasions. Therefore, the UNR article already somehwat elaborates on this all. --Irpen 22:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, it's starting to come back. I still don't understand the objections. I don't see how "short-lived" is biased since it's a simple fact that they were, and it helps the unfamiliar reader with the context—but this adjective can be removed. Is it necessary to name both the UNR and Hetmanate? The former article covers the entire period and clearly refers to the latter; the second link would be better-justified if there was something to say about each of the two in reference to Khreshchatyk, or the damage to the city—did one or the other put more emphasis on rebuilding? If the indirect reference to "Ukrainian states" seems not on par with the foreign powers, then how about just linking the term "Ukrainian forces", as I suggested above?
Regarding an overall article on the revolution in Ukraine: I would rather leave UNR and start a new one. There are many other aspects which need to be covered to help give an overall picture: Russian Bolshevik invasion, Ukrainian Bolsheviks and Borotbists, Makhno, Carpatho-Ukraine, the Crimean Tatars, (what else?). Perhaps Ukraine (1917–1922) may be a better title. But I'm just talking out of my hat, since I'd gladly contribute but I don't feel ready to start the article myself. —Michael Z. 2006-03-09 22:36 Z
Well if everybody (exept me) already make up their mind about the issue, lets us have a straw poll and solve the issue one way or the other. I know polls are evil, but revert wars are worse.
Okay, but that's a bit quick, considering I just proposed a possible compromise wording. Can we see whether anyone would go for it first? The wording is "Ukrainian, Bolshevik, German, and Polish forces". —Michael Z. 2006-03-09 22:59 Z
OK, I removed the poll for now. Nobody voted but me at this stage abakharev 23:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael, we could look for a compromise if the advantages of an alternative version are explained somehow. The original text is explained in response to the attacks at least for times: [14], [15], [16], [17]. We haven't seen any rebuttals. As per this, I am restoring it as the better one, until we hear some reasonable explanation on how it is inferior. What we got so far was unexplained edits and reverts. If the opponents can say something in response to what was said in the links above, they are welcome to do so by all means. Otherwise, this part should be left alone. --Irpen 07:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

In my view, Michael proposed a reasonable compromise. I support his version.--AndriyK 09:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Please care to elaborate in responce to the points I raised in the diffs above. "I like this" is not an answer. --Irpen 17:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I explained it sufficiently on this page. Please look it through and stop pestering.--AndriyK 17:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I did look to what you posted when you posted it and responded to what was respondable. Since you refuse to continue, I am restoring to a well explained and stable version of the article. --Irpen 19:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You did not respond my questions.--AndriyK 20:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I responded. Read! Who is pestering, BTW? Why won't you make a single edit since your return? --Irpen 21:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Guys! Both versions are very similar. I do not see any reason to argue. Irpen is right, because the states were indeed short-lived. But I also understand AndriyK: it's completely irrelevant if they were short- or long-lived, because the article is about Khreschatik, not about the states. Why not to stick at Michael's version? BTW, the link to Anisimov's site does not workMbuk 22:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/h/r/Talk%7EKhreschatyk_722a.html"