Talk:Kiev/Naming issue Archive04 (August-December 2005)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Sound for the pronounciation in Ukrainian 2 Kijow? 3 Spelling of K..v 4 Decolonization policies

[edit] Sound for the pronounciation in Ukrainian

Tell me if this is fine: kyiv.ogg (help·info) I noticed there's the Russian pronounciation, but no Ukrainian! I was born in Ukraine, so this is how most people pronounce it. Iopq 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

This sounds fine to me. Vivafelis^talk 17:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Put that in the article? Iopq 22:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Any way this could be re-recorded without background noise?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 00:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I used a sound editing software to remove hiss and then I shortened the sound to just the segment where I pronounce it. Where my microphone fails GoldWave succeeds :) here is the new file: kyiv.ogg (help·info) (Should I have just uploaded the new version on the old file's page?) -Iopq 03:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds much better now, although there are still two clicks that can be heard in the beginning and the end of the recording (but that's probably me just being too picky). If you have no objections, I will delete the original version and move the new one to its place.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 12:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why it clicks. Probably because it's cut out of a longer file. Go ahead and delete the old one and replace it with this one. I may be able to fix the clicks later and I'll just upload a new version then. -Iopq 21:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the original (with noise). Since media files cannot be moved, would you, please, reupload the clean version to kyiv.ogg? I could do it myself, of course, but if you do it, the credit is going to show up in your name, not mine (and the PD-self notice will stay). Once you re-upload the file, I'll delete it from the kyiv2.ogg location, finalizing the move. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 01:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed the clicks by muting the first 0.05 seconds and the last 0.1 seconds (approx.) of the file and it should be fine now. I uploaded it to kyiv.ogg (help·info) so you can delete kyiv2.ogg and you can put that in the article.

Great job, thanks! I deleted kyiv2 and updated the article to include link to the new media file.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 12:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems like the Ukrainian pronunciation is very short, and not to helpful to someone who has never heard this word spoken before. It would be nice to have a slower, clear pronunciation. As it is, it sounds like "beyu" but spoken very fast. Just a suggestion --83.237.226.18 10:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Any chance the file could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons so that Wikipedias in other languages have access to the pronunciation? --Iceager 03:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kijow?

People are editing that out and editing it back. In my opinion few people in Ukraine are aware of the Polish name or the Czech name or the Bulgarian name of the city. That's because they have nothing to do with the city. The Russian pronunciation is improtant due to it being the "official" name of the city in the USSR - which the English name is based on. How it is written in Polish of Belorussian or Lithuanian may apply in some cases in historical articles, but it has nothing to do with the city now. (user:Iopq forgot to sign)

For more on this, see Talk:Kiev/Archive02#Kij.C3.B3w_in_Kiev_article. --Irpen 13:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

All the foreign-language versions belong at wiktionary:Kiev. —Michael Z. 2005-10-10 17:04 Z

The Polish name of the city is absolutely irrelevant. Why don't we add the city's name in Swahili? The only two languages that should be represented in this article, are Ukrainian as the official language of the country and Russian, as the language which 90% of the city's population use in everyday's life.—Voyevoda Z. 2005-11-10 14:04 Z

[edit] Spelling of K..v

There is an important point that can be made here that I have not seen in any of your archives. What the media use internationally is not necessarily an appropriate guideline, given that, for instance, British papers refused to switch from Peking to Beijing for a decade and more after China changed its official name. Yet the same papers switched to Kolkata, Mumbai and Mangon so fast it made readers' heads spin. Why? Good question. Trying to compensate for their colonial past may have something to do with the latter. Be that as it may, if independent Ukraine has chosen to change the spelling of the capital's name, along with the spellings of as many as 95% of its locations (according to a 1992 issue of National Geographic) to throw of the yoke of its colonizer, Russia, this should have been respected by western press, but was not. Wikipedia, as a neutral body without any agenda, should therefore respect the change made by the sovereign and independent country of Ukraine, the same way that it has respected changes made by other countries. In this way, it can be a true model of neutrality and respect. We should all keep in mind that using "widespread practice" as a reason to avoid change would have prevented 100% of progress, politically, socially and otherwise, in the human race. Wikipedia itself would not exist, based on such arguments! Rascal&dear 07:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

These arguments have been made in prior discussions and nobody's trying to prove you wrong because you aren't. But please read history and archives and come back. I am saying this not to discourage you but to make sure you familiarize youslef with how we arrived to the current way of how this question is addressed. Hopefully, you will have time to take a look at archives too. Thanks, --Irpen 15:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Rascal&dear, please don't pay attention to the rebuff above. It's not about respecting the will of the people of Ukraine or the most common English standard. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiev_Oblast. This is simply a way to enforce a Russian name over someone. Logic and wikipedia rules have little to do with this. By the way, this poll, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_policy_poll#Disagree_with_current_Wikipedia_policy, is related to this article name. Sooner or later the democratic will of the Ukrainian people will prevail. Let's help it be sooner.--Andrew Alexander 17:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Andrew Alexander, your renaming crusade, as well as anti-Irpen crusade, istotally unimpressive. You may take your grieveances to talk, of course, but if you want to "help is be sooner", you are welcome to help that by using it all around, e.g at talk pages, at forum sites, at usenet, in emails, in books you publish or in newspapers/magazines/newsmedia whose style policy calls for Kyiv (like Kyiv-post) or allows for both (CBC Canada [1], [2] (that is if these newspapers/magazines are willing to publish your writing). For now, Kyiv is not ready for Wikipedia articles. If it makes you loose sleep, I can't help it.

As for the new user, his points are correct. I simply called his to study the context through which the status quo was achieved. That you claim that the reason is nothing else but a anti-Ukrainian mafia at Wikipedia (that spread even to Britannica) is the stamenet I would not comment on. --Irpen 19:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't make statments for me.--Andrew Alexander 21:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is a statement that Irpen removed from the poll page:

Wikipedia should make exceptions for the countries that have become free and wish to be called their own names. This standard is applied to individuals in every democratic country. Everyone has a right to be called what he or she likes. Why should the collective will of the Ukrainian people be ignored for the sake of convenience? Kyiv is what they want to call their capital in English, Kyiv it must be.--Andrew Alexander 21:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well considering there was no referendum in Kiev about the English transliteration then your statement is only a POV, nothing more. I do know that during the orange revolution all english mass media referred to the city as... Kiev. And if anything then there are plenty of people in Kharkiv who will prefer to swap the i for the o. As well in Luhansk the h for the g. Yet no one asked their opinion. So this anectodical argument is .... well an anecdote. --Kuban kazak 02:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

From what ongoing poll page and when did I remove anything? User:Andrew Alexander injected his thoughts into the Wikipedia:Naming policy poll that has long since closed (May 2004). On the very top of the page there is a prominent message:

This Wikipedia article or category is currently inactive and is kept primarily for historical interest.

If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you may try using the talk page or start a discussion at the village pump.

NOTE - Do not vote here. This poll has long since ended.

Despite these three warning Andrew Alexander added his vote and his opinions there. It is much easier than prepare a new survey, read guidelines, propose the policy change and start the new vote in a proper way. This action builds on a familiar pattern of this editor to get the most bang for a buck like making changes right into the intro paragraphs, changing names in the articles, do/propose article title changes, etc. Is there ever any desire to actually write something serious for any article? --Irpen 23:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I did "inject my opinion" in that poll. What harm did it do exactly? What "buck" are you ranting about? --Andrew Alexander 04:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

As for the "bang for the buck", check, for instance, this definition. It means "Value for money" and is totally non-obscene. I read this idiom in NYTimes a while ago on an unrelated matter and liked it. I figured, it must be a correct usage but I may be wrong. As I said, your English may be better than mine.

What harm? Because voting and commenting on closed polls make the records about those polls confusing. There is a right way to do it, go start a new poll but follow the guidelines. You are not "guilty" of changes in articles. Neither you are "guilty" in proposing title changes. I am talking about moving articles without seeking consensus as well as changing names inside the articles. --Irpen 05:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Please anyone, take a look at Wikipedia:Naming policy poll/FAQ if interested. --Irpen 05:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The "naming policy poll" is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on wikipedia. Proof (if any was needed) that a the greatest contribution that many wikipedians could make to the project would be to take an oath NEVER to contribute to wikipedia again. The Ukrainian government has formally announced the spelling of their capital city. The discussion is over. The city's name is spelled "Kyiv". It is nothing but arrogance and laziness to insist otherwise. Those who do should be ashamed of themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SpinyNorman (talk • contribs) .

1. Ukrainian government has no ownership over wikipedia
2. There is nothing shameful about using common names for common places: Moscow for Moskva, Warsaw for Varshava..
3. No referendum was held in K..v about the transliteration. Or for that fact no referendum was held in Ukraine on denying Russian as the second state language. So it is not correct to assume that the majority of Ukrainians prefer Kyiv over Kiev. Besides Kiev is still Russophone.
4. Respectible western institutions use Kiev: BBC, ITV etc.
5. Please sign your entries.

--Kuban kazak 20:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to sign. To address your points... (1) I never meant to imply that the Ukrainian government had "ownership over wikipedia", but they do have the right to define the correct spelling of the names of cities in their country. (2) Yes it is shameful for a handful of arrogant people to insist on an incorrect spelling because they're more familiar with it. What they're really saying is that they can't stand to admit that they are wrong and would rather change reality to suit their mistaken beliefs than the other way around. (3) Whether or not a referendum was held is irrelevant. This is a government matter and the Ukrainian government has decided it. People should deal with that and move on. (4) So what? The question isn't whether these organizations are respectable. They can still make mistakes. The city is called "Kyiv". Any other English spelling is incorrect. --SpinyNorman 01:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Like you said so what? I can understand if Kyiv is used on a diplomatic level. But Wikipedia is not a diplomatic Forum..
2. I take no shame when people call the capital of my country Moscow instead of Moskva. Germans still call Belarus White Russia. Poles still call Vilnius Wilno (even in Russia that term has been extinct since 1945). It is not a question of it being correct or incorret, but it is a question of having articles that are the most user-freindly to the western media.
3. Like I said before wikipedia is not going to adopt a state policy of a government.
4. Yes it is, the fact that western media uses spellings that are most common to its audience is important. And Britannica uses Kiev as well. --Kuban kazak 03:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

1. No, but it is an encyclopedia and the purpose of such an entity is to report the facts, not popular ignorance. Many Americans pronounce the name of the capital city (and the state) as "warshington". Yet the official spelling is retained. The fact of the matter is that the Ukrainian government has designated the correct English spelling of their capital city as "Kyiv". That's the ballgame.

2. Has the Russian government designated the English spelling of the city as "Moskva"? To the best of my knowledge, it has not. If they did, I would support the new spelling. In the case of Ukraine, it is absolutely a question of correct and incorrect. The English spelling "Kyiv" is correct. The others are not.

3. It isn't "adopting" a policy, but it is reporting a policy.

4. That's not a fact at all. And, in any case, the tide is shifting. The Americans are beginning to switch to the new spelling. The Canadians already have and the Brits are probably also in the process. So, at what point will you support the change? --SpinyNorman 05:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Bravo SpinyNorman! Absolutely precise arguments no one among the Russian community here has any answers to except "let's keep it that way".--Andrew Alexander 03:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok go to any ariport and listen to how the names are called in English about flights. The only place you will hear Kyiv is in a Ukrainian airport. Heathrow, Charles de Gaulle, Sheremetevo...JFK all use Kiev. And only in Borispol will you hear Kiev. That is not ignorance. The Ukrainian government can, and will not influence English. No other country ever tried that before, and 15 years onwards it had little success. For me, a Russian, it is Kiev. --Kuban kazak 23:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Guys, these arguments go on in circles for years already. The most important thing in the dialog above is SpinyNorman's statement "the tide is shifting". This is the clue. We will wait and see how the shifting goes. If and when the prevailing spelling in English changes, we will change the usage in WP. The other way around, that is change the spelling in WP in order to help the tide is inappropriate usage of the WP. And no, the name the UA gov uses for the official purposes is irrelevant. Ukrainian gov has no authority over the English language and, in fact, even the American and British govs have none. The prevailing usage is what matters most. If and when it changes for Kyiv, Kuban kazak will have to put up with it despite his being Russian. --Irpen 23:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactely I do not mind Russian speaking (or most importantely Russophilic) cities of Kharkov or Lugansk spelled as Kharkiv or Luhansk...--Kuban kazak

So, at what point will you support the change? --SpinyNorman wrote: "So, at what point will you support the change?"

I don't know about others but I will support the change at the moment when we see that the tide that, according to you, "is [now] shifting" finally would shift such that Kyiv would become a prevailing English usage. There would be several indications of that. The search of the major English media (like Lexis Nexis search of major English language papers, or something similar), will show that Kyiv's usage overcomes the usage of Kiev. The other encyclopedia will change how they name the article (mainly Britannica) as well as the Googlefight results would should Kyiv's prevailance. This will be an indication that the trend in the usage shifted. Since I am of the opinion that WP should reflect the prevailing English usage, I will support using Kyiv in WP when this happends. --Irpen 04:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the addition of 'decolonisation' to the spelling section, it is important that this contextualisation be added. Ukrainian cultural and education policy of 1990s (including Ukrainian history textbooks) are based on the principles forwarded by Edward Said^{[citation needed]}. -yakym

Not really. Ukraine was never a colony of Russia or the USSR in the western sense of the term, and please source your facts. --Kuban kazak 01:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Burden of dreams : history and identity in post-Soviet Ukraine / Catherine Wanner. Have a look at section on education reform. As for Ukraine as a colony, you need to talk with a post-colonial student. Imperial Russia was a colonizer and fought in colonial wars (ie Crimean and Russo-Japanese war) and used similar economic/cultural policies. Please return my edit to the section, it is important. yakym

Ukraine was a founding nation of the Soviet Union. Crimea was annexed by Russia under Russo-Turkish agreement; Russo-Japanese war was started by a Japanese attack on Russian territory. Under no circumstances were the Russian policies similar to that of Britain and France. --Kuban kazak 09:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yakym, that the reasons of lack of Ukrainian independence largely lie with Russian Imperialism is rather widely accepted. In no way this is the same as to say that Ukraine was a colony of Russia. Please bring the respected references from the academic sources that confirm the colony viewpoint and we will discuss the issue further. Please note, that being a colony and to lack independence is not one and the same thing. If you are not sure what is the difference, you may start from the related Wikipedia articles. --Irpen 03:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would also do not refer to Ukraine as a colony of Russia, since the term "colony" implies that a underdeveloped area or country is exploited by a developed country. That was not the case, Russian colonies were Central Asia and Siberia, s. Colony. A better analogy is Czechia in Austria-Hungary, thus a part of a multi-national empire. Also there the process of renaming of city names took place after the collapse of Empire in 1918, e.g. Prag->Praha, Karlsbad->Karlovy Vary etc., even if the majority of population in some cities was German. This process was also reflected in English spelling of city names, except of very established names, e.g. Prague. Vervin 10:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Further, there were some obfuscation of facts in previous statements. Russian Imperialism was not widely accepted, but was also violently forced. There were some uprisings against it in Ukraine, e.g. in 1780's, 1825, 1863, 1905. The breakdown of these uprisings was caused not by loyality to Empire, but they were cruelly defeated. Not Ukraine but Ukrainian SSR was a founding nation of the Soviet Union, which defeated the Ukrainian People's Republic. Russo-Japanese war was a classical colonial and imperialist war, Port Arthur was a naval base of Russian Empire aimed at colonization of China. Vervin 10:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

And Ukrainian SSR is as much Ukraine as was the People's republic. Russian Imperialism was not forced on the country and uprisings were mostly Polish based, the 1905 uprising was nationwide and not directed by Ukrainians in particular, and was caused by the people's discontent with the slow reform and bad political situation. Violentely Russian Imperialism was never used, for instance the migration of the Zaporozhians to the Kuban (for which we still thank Cathrine) was done without a single blood spilt. Also the disestablishment of the Uniate Church was done by the uniate clergy from the inside. Russia did have protectorates (Bukhara, Khiva, Finland) which joined Russia out of their own goodwill. So plese lets not push POVs-Kuban kazak 13:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Your overconfidence competes with your ignorance in history. The uprisings were not only Polish based, and were partly led by Ukrainians. Revolution 1905 in Ukraine had clearly national liberation aspect, which led to readmission to use the Ukrainian language that was prohibited for more then 40 years. Dissolving of Zaporozhians was done by Russian regular troops, and free Cossacks were turned to serfs or killed or sent to Siberia, a lot of Cosacks fled to Osman empire - what was that if not violence? Only a pair years later some of Cossack colonels accomplished to get permission for Cossacks to settle in Region of Kuban to flee from serfdom. You would know that if you were really a Kuban kazak. Dissolution of Uniate Church was again accompanied by sending of all disagreed to Siberia. Well, if sending to Siberia is not a violence for you, then what it should be? A joyride for free? "Russia did have protectorates (Bukhara, Khiva, Finland) which joined Russia out of their own goodwill" - You can complete the list with Kazan, Astrakhan, Siberia, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, partly Ukraine etc. But honestly, are you so naive to argue that an imperialism is possible without a violence? Vervin 16:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry my freind, but it is you that needs to get his facts straight. The majority of the Uniate Church willfuly returned to Orthodoxy. Not a single Cossack was killed in the dissolvement of the Sech, and how can I become a Kuban Cossack if I was born a Kuban Cossack? As for those who fled to the Dunai, their stay there was also short lived (1828-they willfuly brought their pardon to Imepror Alexander I and too moved to the Kuban), and they moved to Kuban not out of fleeing of serfdom, but to continue their Cossack lifestyle and loyally serve the Empire (a tradition which lives on today) Now uprisings did have Ukrainians (as well as Russians) taking part, yet the majority of those who rose up were pro-Polish or had their sympatheis to them. Moreover during the uprising of 1863 the majority of the Belarusians refused to side with Poles. Kazan and Astrakhan would not have been taken had Tatars not made up more than half of Ivan IVs armies. Siberia was empty land. Estonia was awarded via treaty from Sweden; Latvia and Lithuania via partitions. Ukraine joined Russia willfuly when my ancestors signed the treaty of Pereyaslavl. Imperialism is possible without violence; and is also possible with violence. Russia was an empire which spanned many lands and contained many peoples in it, nothing bad personally. --Kuban kazak 18:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Ukraine wasn't strictly a colony of the Russian Empire, but it was treated as one in some ways, and the eastern regions were colonized, including by Cossacks.

The Ukrainian SSR was a founding member of the Soviet Union, but don't forget that the Bolsheviks first invaded and tried to force a total "union with Russia", twice. They had to regroup and change their rhetoric to get any popular Ukrainian support at all, and still needed the Russian Red Army to finally take power. Perhaps if the UNR had had some international support to balance the Russian military incursions, things would have been different.

It may not be right to call Ukraine a colony, but on the other hand, characterizing the beginning of independence as decolonization may not be completely unfair either.

But getting back to the point (I think): mentioning "decolonization policies" in the Kiev/Kyiv section still seems to me to unnecessarily complicate and qualify the issue of why some people dislike the spelling Kiev, unless we can link to a more detailed description of what these official policies are. —Michael Z. 2006-02-07 17:36 Z

Guys, let's not overburden the poor Kiev's talk page with a totally off topic discussion. I also have a comment or two regarding the statements made by either side of this debate, but please take the colonolialism of Russia to the talk:History of Russia or a new article with provisional title Russian colonialism. To this article, the issue is moot. Whatever else anyone thinks, to say that Ukrainian SSR was a colony or the Russian SRSR or of the Soviet Union would be totally bizzare and the decolonization doesn't belong here anyway. Please move on. --Irpen 04:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decolonization policies

A phrase was added to the last sentence of Kiev#Kiev or Kyiv? (italicized):

Some proponents of the spelling Kyiv take exception with the use of Kiev as reflecting imposed Russification in Ukraine, and inappropriate in acccordance with decolonization policies since the country's independence in 1991.

Whose policies, and what are they? A reference or description is necessary. But this sentence simply means inappropriate as in insensitive, rude, disrespectful towards Ukrainian nationality, regardless of policies, and I don't think it needs to get more complicated. —Michael Z. 2006-02-03 22:08 Z

Same idea, and Ukraine was never a colony of Russia or especially the USSR, one way or another. --Kuban kazak 01:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I had placed the source to anthropologist Catherine Wanner's work, Burden of Dreams, but someone removed the reference. The chapter in question discusses educational reform and reworking of history curricula in accordance with postcolonial history of Edward Said. Of course Ukraine was not a colony of USSR, however, the cultural and economic policies Imperial Russia used in Ukraine were analogous with British and French cultural policies used elsewhere (ie Ems Ukaz, etc). Even Lenin stated "it has become for Russia what Ireland was for England: exploited in the extreme and receiving nothing in return." (see page 83 of Serbyn's Lenine et la question ukrainienne en 1914 in Pluriel no. 25, 1981) Notably, this passage is omitted in Soviet collections of Lenin's speeches. In the economic sphere, it is argued Ukraine was not strip-mined like many Asian or American holdings, but rather the capital from profits generated went north to Russia, not Ukraine. Russian finished goods were exported at excessive prices, while Ukrainian commodities were cheaply sold to Russia, a common practice still present in places like Guadaloupe, which imports primarily excessive French products when cheaper American products are available. Also observe postcolonial author Frantz Fanon's concept of cultural processes of Dual Consciousness at work in parts of modern Ukraine. yakym

What are you on about? During the Soviet times (60s, 70s) standards of life in Ukraine were on average higher than in RSFSR, and the reverse happened. Russia contributed endless efforts into other republics which as a result, on the whole lived better than it. The Baltic, which had the highest living standards is a vivid example of this. --Kuban kazak 09:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have doubts over the relevance of the entire debate over whether Ukraine was or was not a colony because it's a debate over terminology. Let's stick to facts and let the reader make conclusions. Pecher ^Talk 14:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I could not agree more. --Kuban kazak 17:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

How ironic, Kuban, since you were the one who questioned in the first place whether Ukraine was a colony. What is in question is the contextualisation of the K/v argument. You have omitted an extremely important part of the cultural context of the history of Ukraine's independence period, of which changing the names of its cities is but one part of that policy. Failure to indicate otherwise within this argument is academically irresponsible. Please note I am not arguing the name change, but rather arguing to denote the rationale behind the change to Kyiv. --Yakym 18:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with my native Kuban? Actually changing names was not done with any reference to decolonisation since all these names were existent even in the Soviet times. Since Russian was official language of the USSR, they were given, and once again how could a nation that founded the USSR be its colony? --Kuban kazak 09:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yakym, you brought up some interesting issues while some of what you said makes very little sense to me. However, in any case, this is an off-topic debate for the purpose of this article. Mentioning of the term "decolonization" in the context of Ukrainian government's and legislature's attempt to extend their authority towards the English language can only be relevant if the applicability of the "colonialism" as a descriptive term of the Soviet and Imperial Russian policies towards Ukraine is widely accepted in the mainstream. If you want to make the case, that such an approach has some limited support among the scholars, I would have given you some benefit of doubt despite I haven't seen its being used in the Western literature. But in any case, this is not a mainstream position and as such the term cannot be used in the article in a matter-of-fact way as, say, the term dictatorship is being used in connection with Stalin's regime.

If you want to give the "colonialism" view some coverage at Wikipedia, you are welcome to start a Russian colonialism article, where this view is covered and the refs provided. You could also try to inject the term to the History of RU, History of UA and History of the USSR articles and see how it goes there. For this article, the term is inapplicable and will remain inapplicable until the approach you suggest becomes a mainstream view. The articles could use so much expansion, that I suggest we move on, rather than concentrate on this Kiev/Kyiv dispute that takes more than a half of this talk page space and archives. This particular section is well balanced now and is the result of the broad consensus. We can also start a separate English spelling of the capital of Ukraine for a more detailed account if there are any takers.

And if someone really needs to raise the issue, please make sure to read past discussions and don't let the new ones stray off-topic. For example, what does the issue of Kiev spelling have to do with the Polish uprising? Thanks to all! --Irpen 19:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)