Talk:Territorial evolution of Russia

Untitled

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this entry except it does not adequaltely cover ALL non-Russian territories of the empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.49.146 (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

Currently, the article is quite useless. It seems like the author's intention was to spawn more revert wars, as if we don't have enough with similar idiotic entries, e.g., anti-Romanian discrimination. He alleges a certain capital flight (using an egregiously modern expression, by the way) from Ukraine to the Russian Empire, as if the former was not the part of the latter! This example is enough to show that his ability for logical reasoning is seriously impaired.

No mention is made of the enormous benefits that the Russian domination brought to its former satellites and to the capital flight and continual subsidizing of the "metropoly" to the "colonies". If other colonial powers drained the colonies of resources and finances, in Imperial Russia it was completely otherwise. As soon as the countries gained independence, most of them collapsed into the ruin of poverty, illeteracy, and corrupted administration. Those who didn't - like Ukraine, Belarus, and Baltic States - enjoyed billion dollars of Russian subsidies each year. In short, NPOVing is needed. --Ghirla | talk 15:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Wi should remind, on the other hand, that Russia and Soviet Union have benefited of natural resources in colonial territories. Very different is the case of Italy, that invested great amounts of capital in its colonies without any return.--Deguef (talk) 08:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Not really. I am a postcolonialism student. What you have just written is the typical narrative of a russophile historian. Origin of phrase is irrelevant; most terms to describe colonial practices were created after 1950. Ghirla, where did the wealth for these so-called subsidies come from? You need to source your information if you are to launch any sort of credible criticism.

• Postcolonial studies is not a POV. Until you find academic sources for your rebuttal, the NPOV tag is being removed. For sourcework surrounding reciprocity, see source: Subtelny.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakym (talk • contribs)

First of all, much of the article's content relates to Russification, a valid topic in itself, but a different thing from colonialism. The view that Ukraine was indeed a "colony" rather than the province of Russia is highly unorthodox and needs to be presented in an atributed form as an opinion of the specific scholar (or scholarship). Finally, removal of the explained POV tag is generally frown upon and, if not always WP:Vandalism borders it in any case. As per above, I will restore the tag. --Irpen 03:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, go on. The relations between "Great Russia" and "Lesser Russia" within Russian Empire were not unlike relations between England and Scotland within United Kingdom. Yakim, you don't think that Scotland is a colony, do you? Obviously, you need to revise the standard of your sources. --Ghirla | talk 08:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, your comparison with Ireland is incorrect. Ireland was a colony indeed. Relations between Greater Russia and Lesser Russia are, on the other hand, closer to those between England and Scotland: used to have a common language, centuries of common history and religion, closely related ethnically. --Ghirla | talk 07:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Irpen. I will change the article to denote the difference of conventions of study. Note - many Russian historians (et al) shortly after 1900, including Lenin, referred to Ukraine and other regions as colonies of Imperial Russia. Until the early 1930s, there were many communist historians (ie Volobuev) who held similar lines, but were victims of the purge. The topic reemerged in the 1950-60s, but not within the USSR herself (Walter Kolarz). The postcolonial perspective on Ukraine and other parts of imperial Russia has been applied more actively since 1991, especially in the Baltic states and Ukraine, which I have noted in the talk:Kiev section. In Ukraine, colonial/postcolonial history has become part of history curricula (and verified in Catherine Wanner's anthropology book, Burden of Dreams). I will change the article to reflect this when I can access the Wanner book to properly cite all needed information. I also agree, much of the article covers Russification, but Russification is not an isolated policy; it does assist in achieving political goals (unity) and economic goals. Likewise, I will make necessary changes to denote this more clearly. --Yakym 23:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the factual accuracy of the article, every fact in the article is sourced. Notice I do not refer to Scotland in the article, but to Ireland - as Ghirla incorrectly notes. Ghirla, you are the one needing to revise the (embarrassing) standards of your sources. Based on this, the factual tag is removed. --Yakym 23:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The policies of the Greater Russia towards Ukraine were indeed assimilationist and directed towards achieving and securing the concept of "united and indivisible Rus'". This, however, has nothing to to with colonialist policies whose primary goal is the pure economical exploitation and achieving the unity and uniformity between the metropoly and the colony is not ever in the picture. While to some extent, the colonialism concept may apply to Russian policies in Asia (better ask the specialist), Ukraine and Belarus were totally integrated in the empire or, at least, every attempt was made to integrate them. During the Russian industrial revolution, Ukrainian economy, as well as the Belarusian one, boomed as much as in the rest of the empire. Kiev boomed amazingly and became the third most important city of the empire by the end of the 19th century in whose beginning it was a sleepy and obscure town, a status at which it ever remained since its demise by Mongols and through centuries of Polish domination. Those times were indeed the times of "colonization" of Ukraine (by Poland) and this exact term is used by Britannica (see talk:History of Kiev for a quote).

There may have been some "exploitation" of imperial provinces by the imperial capital, but this is the eternal Russian problem and Ukrainian guberniyas were "exploited" in this respect no more than the provinces in the Russia itself. --Irpen 08:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Inline citations have been added for proof of economic exploitation, which should satisfy the requirements for the removal of the original research tag. As for the NPOV perhaps this article should be renamed Russian Colonialism in Ukraine and limited to this scope only?--Yakym (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Russian Colonialism

Russian Colonialism-term used in history to specific conditions and actions of Russian Empire that are similiar in form to colonialism in different parts of the world. Article should be improved, deletion isn't right for widely used term. Russian Identity, Nationalism, Colonialism and Postcolonialism Ewa M. Thompson, Professor of Slavic Studies, Rice University http://www.postcolonialweb.org/poldiscourse/ewt/1.html

I shall try to expand article. My country suffered from Russian Colonialism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomLis (talk • contribs) 16:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

All right, I will wait a week, as you requested before submitting it for deletion. --Irpen 17:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What about other regions?

This article seems to be centered solely upon Ukraine (with little accuracy). How about the conditions in other parts of the Russian Empire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.97.122 (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

COLONIALISM IS NOT COLONIZATION

Colonization and colonialism are two distinct phenomenon and should not be confused. Everywhere it occurs colonialism brings changes. Marx considered it a necessary evil on the path to modernization. Views of leaders and historians of the imperial powers must not overshadow the views of the colonized who were not always of a difference colour than the colonizer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.247.106 (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Table of changes - some dates not in sequence

As I post this, the Table of changes is not in true chronological order. Some years are out of correct sequence. If there is not a reason for this, other than error, a regular editor here is encouraged to fix it. 5Q5 (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

1939-1941

For some strange reason the era from 1939 to 1941 seems to be missing from the article. The Soviet Union (representing Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution) invade/occupied in part or in total the countries of Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania during that period. Is there some ulterior motive, why this isn't mentioned in the article? --105.0.4.229 (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Historical map of Georgia AD 1801.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Kyiv

Hi, Ymblanter. You reverted my change of the name of the city to Kyiv, with the assuing edit summary Undid revision 979078206 by Mzajac (talk) clear disruption, historical usage have not been discussed. This article states its own scope clearly in the introductory paragraph as “the course of over five centuries (1533–present).” But the usage of the name is not historical, it is in an encyclopedic article current as of 2020. So please explain what interpretation of the consensus about Kyiv you are imagining.

(And if you think I’m being disruptive, then please start a civil discussion or initiate an administrative action, but please don’t drop unproductive accusations in your edit summaries.) —Michael Z. 18:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The usage is historical, and the Kyiv RfC did not even discuss historical usage, It mereky concluded that the current English name of the city is Kyiv (along with Kiev). It did not say anything about the name of the city in the 17th century. You are welcome to start a new RfC.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

No, the requested move said the name of the city is Kyiv, without qualifications. Perhaps you haven’t thought this through. For example, in the 17th century the city was called Kiow or Kiovia in English. And would you rewrite History of Kyiv which covers 2,000 years using different spellings for the sections “Kingdom of Poland,” “Russian Empire,” and “Independent Ukraine”? Of course, not, because that would be confusing, and nobody writes like that. But if you still insist, I can start a process. —Michael Z. 19:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am sorry but I have to insist. I have seen literally a dozens of users during this rename frenzy who stated that the move only concerns the current name of the city, and some going as far as saying that for example Kiev / Kyiv Oblast would require a separate RM. Whereas I am pretty sure that Kiev Oblast would be moved after an RM anyway, and there is no reason to send people for RM, for historical usage, including this case I reasonably expect that there is at least some opposition, and RM is the best way to proceed. I would advise not just do it on this page, but find something more generic (like indeed History of Kyiv), make it an RfC, make it clear that it is about historical usage (and if there is a difference, only give different option what would be the cut-off time) and announce it centrally and on corresponding Wikiprojects. If this has not been done, I am afraid, at some point the community would just vote to bot-revert everything. You can also notice that your viewpoint is really extreme: You not only think that the real name of the city was Kiev already many years ago, but you also repeatedly called names those who opposed this opinion. I do not think at this point you should be sanctioned for this or topic-banned, but I am afraid you are operating, without realizing this, under understanding that your opinion is English Wikipedia mainstream, whereas it is factually not. Please have this in mind.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

We all have opinions. You’re asking me to start a big project, and I am not prepared to do that. I think this article is a good one to set some precedents because it crosses subject fields, it is not overly broad but not too specific. It would make editors think about some of the thorny issues this question brings up, and their resolution would help make similar decisions elsewhere, and help inform adjacent topics. I will call an RFC here, with a simple, neutral question “should the city’s name be spelled Kiev or Kyiv in this article?” It is, after all, the crux of our disagreement. —Michael Z. 19:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Just in this case the result, whatever it is, which I am not going to contest (in fact, I am not even going to vote at RfC) will apply to this article and nowhere else.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Now, after my reply, I noticed Talk:Kyiv#Cleaning up associated articles where you are the only user arguing for automatic move/replacement of historical names, and everybody else in the discussion either oitright opposed or said it must be discussed separately. This was yesterday. You have replied to the discussion and are clearly aware of its existence. Thus, I am sorry, but your claim that there is consensus for such change is - how should I say - highly questionable, and you are perfectly aware of this.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Say what, now? I did not argue for automatic move or replacement of anything. I suggested Fyunck create a central discussion for discussing renaming all of the “[Kniaz] of Kyiv” articles, which I thought should wait until later. I have manually reviewed every instance in text that I have changed, checked original sources and translations, and in moves have fixed double redirects and checked image permissions. The only error I’ve missed was apparently caused by the visual editor requiring link and text to be edited separately, and that had no ill effect on text or link. —Michael Z. 20:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Just in the article on which talk page we are now you have replaced Kiev with Kyiv in the context of a 17th century usage, without any discussion, and argued that this replaced has been mandated by the RM, even though the discussion you have participated in yesterday suggested that there is no consensus for such automatic applications of RM.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I’m not quite following. I’m not RM-ing anything, just editing article copy. The article covers 1533 to 2020. Even if it was about only the 17th century, the city’s name is Kyiv, and it hasn’t even changed in that time. Our spelling of it changed two days ago. I suspected someone might object, but I don’t see any solid argument to oppose this edit.

You seem to think I’m breaking some principal I promised to honour. Please quote me, because I don’t know what you mean that I “suggested that there is no consensus for such automatic applications of RM.” —Michael Z. 20:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

We are clearly talking past each other. I do not see your point, you do not see my point. I think my point is obvious and can not be explained further, you think your point is so obvious that it is difficult to explain it better. Contrary to what your blocked friend thinks, I am not seeking any sanctions against you at this point, not do I have a strong opinion what the most common name of the city is and in what situations this applies. It is trivial to check that I have not voted at the Kiev RM. My role as an administrator of this project is to enforce policies, in this case, WP:CONSENSUS. I think we should stop here and see what consensus actually is, by inviting other people to the discussion, either by opening an RfC or a RM. My concern is that if this RfC/RM concerns only this page, then we have a similar story at Kiev Governorate (18th century), and all over the place. But apparently you do not see it as concern, and I have no means to force you to do anything or to organize such a discussion myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter RE your statement It is trivial to check that I have not voted at the Kiev RM: I also did not vote in the Kyiv/Kiev RM, although I left many comments there; similarly to me, you also did not vote in the Kyiv/Kiev RM, but you made comments there (such as this one). p.s. RE your statement that mentions me Contrary to what your blocked friend thinks, I am nobody's friend (including Mzajac's), as I have no friendship-like relationship with anyone on Wikipedia.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, we’ll agree to disagree. I’ll start a simple RFC here as described above. I could ask post it under the Wikipedia style and naming topic. For now I won’t solicit input input from talk:Kyiv, Wikiproject Russia, and WikiProject Ukraine, but it could balloon. Any other suggestions? We’ll see what happens. —Michael Z. 21:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Oops, the style topic is for discussing policies, not their application. I will choose the History and Geography subject area. —Michael Z. 21:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter, I would like to close the RFC below, if you don’t object. The opinions are 7 to 7, and in the last two weeks the discussion has only grown by 1 to 1, so I don’t foresee any significant change. —Michael Z. 17:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Whereas I agree with your conclusion, I generally think that a user who started the RfC should not close it. It is easier to list it at the requests for closure.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, okay, I will post there. —Michael Z.

RFC about the spelling of a specific place name to use here

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the city’s name be spelled Kiev or Kyiv in the text of this article.? —Michael Z. 21:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Spelled Kyiv per Talk:Kyiv/sources--73.75.115.5 (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  The IP was avoiding the sanction which would prevent them from participating in this discussion, They are now CU blocked--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  Struck CU blocked IP's comments. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Kyiv, for the same reason articles on the Middle Ages aren't written in Old English. — Exlevan (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. People do not seem to have much interest in this RfC, but I see that most making statements about historical usage favor Kiev. See e,g [1], [2], [3], [4]. This is more convincing to me that the argument of the TS that we should blanket replace everywhere Kiev with Kyiv. --Ymblanter (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  It is not most, although we could check that. Some of those are about naming other articles and not about referring to the city, and some of the arguments are faulty or based on false premises, and in a discussion about disciplinary matters. Please read the full discussions before jumping conclusions. —Michael Z. 17:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  Formal oppose. I do not find Mzajac's arguments convincing at all, and in the discussion above I tried to make an argument that they are not policy-based.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, you and I already knew that. I understood RFC as a request to bring outside input into a stalled debate, not a vote, and not an opportunity to extend the debate with a wider audience. Was I mistaken? Let’s look at WP:RFC#Suggestions for responding. —Michael Z. 19:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  Sure. I have provided my arguments. You do not accept them, and this is ok, however, I hope the closer will take them into account.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• Kiev, we should defer to RS on this historical subject. If and when historical texts begin to spell the city as Kyiv, we can change our spelling to reflect that. I'll note that contrary to Exlevan's argument that we don't use Middle English for historical articles, we consistently refer to St Petersburg as Petrograd in our articles about the Russian Revolution and as Leningrad when listing the birth places of people born in the USSR. We consistently refer to Istanbul as Constantinople for articles about the Byzantine Empire, and we refer to London as Londinium when discussing Roman campaigns in England. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  Unlike those, Kyiv’s name didn’t change, only its English spelling. But if we did accept your rationale, then we should refer to it as Kiovia, Kiow, Kiev, and Kyiv in this article. —Michael Z. 03:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  The more important part of my comment is that we should follow RS. Do any English RS discussing the territorial evolution of Russia refer to the city as Kyiv? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  Yes. See, for example, this Google Scholar search. —Michael Z. 12:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  And the same search using "Kiev" returns more than three times as many results [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%E2%80%9CKiev%E2%80%9D+Russia&btnG=} --Khajidha (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  Yet our article is Kyiv. Scholar answers Rosguill’s question but it doesn’t determine our writing style. And those numbers are wrong. See WP:GOOGLE on how to determine Google results counts. —Michael Z. 12:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not saying the numbers are exact, only that your numbers do not represent all sources and are not even the demonstrably dominant form. And you still ignore the point about ALL the other places that use different names at different times. If, as you say, "Kiev" and "Kyiv" are not different, then there was no reason to change. The fact is that "Kiev" and "Kyiv" are different English names. --Khajidha (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  Simply searching for "Kiev" and "Kyiv" on Google Scholar won't be terribly helpful because most of the results will not be immediately relevant to the topic of this article. We should be trying to determine which is the most common spelling in the context of the 1667 and 1686 conquests of the city by Russia (the only two places where Kiev/Kyiv currently shows up in this article), and defer to the spellings used in RS analyses of these historical events. Searching for "1667" "Kiev" returns 6,050 results; "1667" "Kyiv" returns 1,910 results. "1686" "Kiev" returns 4,700 results; "1686" "Kyiv" returns 1,710 results. Limiting the search to only articles published since 2016 or even since 2019 narrows the gap, but Kiev still comes out ahead. For now, Kiev appears to still be the common name in these contexts in English, although there's a solid chance that that will change in a few years' time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  Did you determine the number of results per WP:GOOGLE, or did you just read the incorrect number at the top of the first page of results? —Michael Z. 18:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  These were taken from a Google Scholar search. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Kiev. The fact that there are in fact some sources that use "Kyiv" in this context does not change the fact that the overwhelming majority use "Kiev".--Ermenrich (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  If there is in fact a guideline that says we should apply this principle in the body text of articles, then I wonder how you would rewrite articles like History of Kyiv, or Orange Revolution, or even the main article of Kyiv itself. —Michael Z. 16:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• Re: History of Kyiv, compare with the History of Lviv which uses both Lwów and Lviv. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

And Lemberg. Interesting. But two of those are different foreign names with different pronunciation, not just an alternate English spellings. Anyway, based on what do we determine which spelling to use where? Ukrainian was official in Soviet Ukraine, and Russian was discouraged in the 1920s, but then colonial Russification suppressed Ukrainian for much of the time after that. Or shall we use other contemporary English spellings like Kiow, Kiovia, and Kief? —Michael Z. 17:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

If that's how reliable sources refer to them, then yes. But they don't, and you know that, it's a red herring.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

You are re-arguing the RM of the main article. I guess you mean to apply it to some exceptional cases, but what is the rationale for that? Please explain why the argument you have given here means that the preferred spelling of the city’s name should not be used in, for example, Declaration of Independence of Ukraine. —Michael Z. 18:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Kiev, clearly historical usage in this context, and what shows up in most English-language sources on this topic. Walrasiad (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Kyiv - it is the same city's name, but different transliteration. Agree with Exlevan, it is like use old English for Middle Ages --Geohem (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  That's nonsense, since most people still use Kiev [5]. The equivalent is if Texans suddenly insisted that Ukrainians use the "American" name Тексас rather than the "Spanish" name Техас, started an international campaign to change it, and made it a great matter of national pride that Ukrainians not use the "Spanish" name. And just to clarify: I am not arguing against using Kyiv in modern contexts, but for historical ones Kiev obviously remains more common.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  No, that is nonsense because you are just re-litigating the RM of Kyiv. Please introduce a new argument, and precisely define “not modern contexts.” —Michael Z. 18:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You’re the one who wants the change, its incumbent on you to explain why, not me.—Ermenrich (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I spelled the city’s name Kyiv because the article is entitled Kyiv. I think it’s incumbent on Ymblanter to explain why he reverted a self-explanatory improvement to the article (“clear disruption, historical usage have not been discussed”), and I don’t believe anyone has satisfactorily done so. —Michael Z. 19:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I did already many times, in particular, several times at this page, but you do not hear--Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Your link has an I in it. What does that stand for? —Michael Z. 19:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Kyiv per the main article at Kyiv. As others have said, the English transliteration has varied (and continues to vary), but this is not a case of a historically accurate name differing from the present. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Kiev as others have said, the context is historical and English language sources use "Kiev" most for these topics. The counter-arguments here are not persuasive. Mellk (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Kiev. It's the historical English spelling as used in reliable sources. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Kiev, for the same reasons (as many others have said), that Constantinople is called Constantinople in contexts prior to 1923, that that Mother Theresa is Mother Theresa of Calcutta, &ct. In response to those arguments that the name of the city had no changed: maybe in Ukraine the name of the city didn't change, but what you fought tooth and nail for in the English language was a name in English. Period. Spelling changes in English happen gradually over decades, generations, or centuries. Any radical change in spelling imposed (LITERALLY) over night against a spelling that's been in place for over 100 years is a name change for the English language. Furthermore, the tactics being used by the other side are circular in their reasoning, and I cant see any other way of describing them other than dishonest and in bad faith. They accuse others of "rearguing the original RM", when all that those individuals were doing was DIRECTLY REBUTTING the other side's arguments. They're effectively saying that all direct refutation of any argument they make is off limits. That is an unacceptable and a deplorable practice. All arguments put forward by all sides are fair game. You don't get to put forward an argument, then declare to anyone that tries to rebut it that they're not allowed to! If those argument areas were truly off limits, then you shouldn't have brougjt them up! And if you do bring them up, it is NOT YOUR PLACE to declare that any and al direct rebuttals to your arguments are off limits. Firejuggler86 (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  Sure. But every counterargument is also open to rebuttal. One can certainly criticize the ones which ignore or contradict some factors mentioned in the move decision, for example, or simply repeat arguments made many times during the move request. By the way, the spelling Kyiv has been attested in English for at least 83 years. It has not been “imposed,” but accepted by Wikipedians’ consensus, and you had the opportunity to make your voice heard there. —Michael Z. 20:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Kyiv - The name of the city hasn't changed, just how it's spelled in English. When referring to the capital city of Ukraine, we should refer to it using the modern spelling, even if we're referring to it at some point in the past, instead of using historical spellings (there are many, e.g. Kiev, Kiow, etc.). Lev!vich 19:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• Kyiv. Kyiv has not been renamed ever since it was founded. We cannot rename Kyiv or any other city in any period of its history. It is about spelling. Before there was "Kiow", then "Kiev", then "Kyiv". I have not seen any authoritative source in which different names of Kyiv are used in different periods of history. If we do this differentiation and keep writing "Kiev", we violate WP:VERIFY, WP:ORIGINAL and distort the perception of history. In the entire historical line since Kyiv was founded, including places, events and persons, we must write "Kyiv". --AndriiDr (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  The user does not speak English, and their contribution apart from blanket replaces Kiev->Kyiv is five edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  Reverting to name-calling suggests that you are defensive and therefore find my opinion valid. --SpockAndriiDr (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Kiev, as it was known historically as Kiev. Kyiv is a post-1991 issue.--Astral Leap (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

  This article’s scope, 1533 to 2020, covers post-1991 issues. —Michael Z. 14:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

  The mentions of Kiev in this article are from 1547, 1667, and 1686. Kiev ceased to be Russian since the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1919. If there is a post-1991 mention, which appears irrelevant at the moment, it could be Kyiv.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

  The current mentions. It is bad editorial style, and confusing, to use different spellings of the same name in different sections. Is anyone advocating this or discussing it at talk:Kyiv? No. This is a geographical survey article including post-1991 history, so there should be no controversy. —Michael Z. 18:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

  I expanded the last stub section, Territorial evolution of Russia#Russian Federation. It mentions Kyiv in 2014. I still think we should resolve the two-spellings conflict. —Michael Z. 19:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Kyiv Unless of course you're open to using Kijevas and Kijów during the periods it was controlled by Lithuania and Poland blindlynx (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• Kiev in historical contexts, Kyiv 1991+. Why is this even being asked? WP does not rewrite history. When's the last time you heard of the "ancient Roman invasion of the United Kingdom"?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Kiev - Russian and historical article.... this would seem like Kiev to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  Russian articles use Kiev? So Ukrainian articles would use Kyiv then? This idea is worth discussing at talk:Kyiv. —Michael Z. 05:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  I would assume that most of the historical articles came about while the city was under Russian control/influence (or USSR control), but maybe not all. So it's at least worth exploring. But certainly when you are talking about the territory of Russia it was not Kyiv. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  Ukraine Left Russia and was recognized as independent by it in 1918, and has never considered part of it since (although previously Kyiv was part of the Russian empire much like Mumbai was part of the British empire until 1947). It was not under Russian control in the Soviet Union. Ukraine and Russia were two equal republics under Soviet control, and both left the Soviet Union (Ukraine first). Both Ukrainian and Russian languages were used in Ukraine during the entire period. We have separate articles History of Ukraine and History of Russia. “Certainly” what, exactly? It has been Kyiv since the year 482, and absolutely certainly during the period covered by this article, “1533–present,” including the 2014 mention in the second-last paragraph of this article. —Michael Z. 13:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  I assume the fact that they were equal republics in the Soviet Union and Kiev was not under Russian control is why you insist that we need to change the name everywhere because of colonialism? Really, you can't have it both ways Mzajac. You're arguments actually contradict each other. Everyone knows that Soviet Ukraine was under Russian control. Russification was actively pursued in Soviet Ukraine. The Soviet Union was under Russian control, whatever claims of it being a "fraternal union of republics" it made.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  No, you assume wrong. I am writing about Fyunck(click)’s assumptions and logic here. My own main reasons for using Kyiv in most articles are because Wikipedia’s consensus is to use Kyiv, and because in the subject of Ukrainian history current sources use Kyiv. Another reason for you to support using it in the text of this article is because it is not a historical article restricted to pre-1995 history, but a survey whose scope is “1533–present.” —Michael Z. 16:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  But I also said control. Until the USSR breakup Ukraine was a separate entity in name only. It was an extension of Russia and it was Kiev. And Wikipedia's consensus was not to use Kyiv... it was to change the article title Kiev to Kyiv. Afterwards almost everyone realized that there would need to be give and take with many of our articles and this was stated pretty much from day one. We knew historical and cooking articles would have huge issues with using Kyiv and it was under discussion how to handle it when editor Ales sandro and administrator Mzajac started changing every article under the sun. That's when I really took notice that Kiev>Kyiv was being abused. That's when this conversation was opened where Chicken Kiev was only a "maybe" exception. I took more notice to see that the process was being followed and something wasn't being shoved down peoples throats. By RfC consensus it looks like 1991 is going to be a cutoff date for Kiev to Kyiv. With a few exceptions to that, can we just move on and do other things at Wikipedia? There's a heck of a lot that we can help with other than the cutoff date of Kyiv usage. The main article has been re-titled to Kyiv, which was the really big deal. That's the showcase article. This article is mostly historical in nature and all uses of Kiev (except one) is historical. The 2014 demonstration section should either be Kiev (Kyiv) or Kyiv (Kiev) since it's different than the other historical Russian sections. Figure out which is best and move on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  The Russian SFSR didn’t control the Ukrainian SSR. The Soviet government and communist party controlled both, until both left the union, signing joint statements of mutual respect as equals. Your argument is like an extra reverse WP:BIAS, to reinforce a colonial legacy in our language using an invented argument even the former colonizers didn’t make. None of our guidelines supports this.  ¶ And speaking of systemic bias, practically all of the argument for the “historical” exception is based on “almost everyone realized” and “we knew,” without actually relating to the guidelines. And when they do, it is all “historical sources use X” without any evidence, except a mutual understanding, presumably based on everyone’s comfort level with grade seven history textbooks and popular histories about the Blitzkrieg. Please reread the decision on moving Kyiv. Every statement there applies equally to historical subjects: there are two spellings that satisfy wp:commonname, and Kyiv is the one that better satisfies our guidelines. The always-Kiev crowd has chosen the “history” subject area as their last holdout, and pointedly ignores that in the more specific subject area of Ukrainian history the most common spelling in reliable sources is Kyiv, today, and going forward.  ¶ And now you’re arguing to further compromise consistency by using two different spellings in one article. What a mess this will be. —Michael Z. 21:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  If you are only interested in consistency then the 2014 mention should absolutely be Kiev to match the other instances. I think Kiev (Kyiv) in the 2014 mention would be better. And remember, per your own investigation into Wikipedia MOS, all those articles that changed to Kyiv, on first use, should use Kyiv (Kiev). Every single article. So putting in a Kiev (Kyiv) would work fine in this case. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  The “historical” spelling would be an exception, not the rule, so if one were only interested in absolute consistency, cases like this one would use Kyiv by default unless there is consensus to do otherwise. (That RFC is about article titles.) ¶ And you could suggest that updated articles mention the Russian spelling, but that is not what the guideline I quoted at talk:Kyiv#First use of Kiev accompanied by explanatory (Kyiv) recommends. If you ask me, linking the main article’s name to the main article is a fundamental basic principle of self-explanation on this website, for topics and names widely understood or completely obscure. ¶ I am still interested in your position about Russian articles using the Russian spelling. It is a question that’s mostly been ignored and has other implications. —Michael Z. 02:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

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.

Kyiv spelling, no consensus

Regarding the above discussion and inconclusive RFC, since there is no specific consensus to apply the “historical article” exception, this article would revert to using the main-article title Kyiv, per the decision at talk:Kyiv/Archive 7 § Requested move 28 August 2020 and our naming conventions, for example, in MOS:CAPS § Place names, “In general, other articles should refer to places by the names which are used in the articles on those places, according to the rules described at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). If a different name is appropriate in a given historical or other context, then . . .” As mentioned by the RFC closer, this is also affected by the consensus at talk:Kyiv § RfC: Kyiv/Kiev in other articles, which gave its definitive example of an “unambiguously current / ongoing topic,” Kyiv Metro, a survey article with an extensive, long history that includes the post-Soviet period, like this one. No doubt someone will disagree.

Another alternative is to decide the article should be in its present state, where alternative spellings Kyiv and Kiev are used to refer to the city in different periods within the same article. Not a good precedent, in my opinion, and potentially leads to a tremendous number of long discussions and inconsistent style in hundreds of articles, since reliable sources now tell us that, at least for our purposes, history did not end in 1991. —Michael Z. 17:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

May I please remind you that it was you who added the post-1991 usage in the article, where it is completely unnecessary, to prove the point. The article was doing great for years without it. Just remove it and leave the 17th century instances of Kiev where they have always been.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Doesn’t matter. This article still doesn’t meet the definition of “historical article” that you endorsed at talk:Kyiv. You are still advocating willfully ignoring guidelines and consensus over there, and insisting on applying the exception here, despite the absence of a consensus to do so. Maybe it’s time to move on? There’s got to be a threshold somewhere. —Michael Z. 14:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not arguing for any exception. This article does not need to mention Kiev at all. What it needs is to mention is Kiev Governorate. What you are arguing is that since you have added a mention of the city where it does not belong, all other mentions suddenly must become Kyiv, contrary to all existing reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

So you’re arguing to remove at least three independent mentions of Kyiv because you don’t like the spelling?

No. I am arguing to implement the 16 September consensus on the spelling of the main-article title Kyiv, because your argument that the 13 November RFC applies to this article has failed to achieve consensus.

Please let the healing begin. —Michael Z. 17:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

No. This is not "healing", this is mass scale disruption. Achieve consensus first. So far, you have failed.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the uneeded mention (one, not three) of Kyiv. Now the article only mentions the city in the context of the 18th century and correctly spells it as Kiev. This is the current consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Smooth move. Now fix History of Kyiv: you can just remove the city’s name from the post-Soviet period in all survey articles. I was joking, sorry, but perhaps you are actually in denial, if you can’t even tolerate the mention of Ukraine’s capital city. Fine. But you’re POINTedly ignoring what led to this debate.

This is about the spelling of Kyiv in the context of articles that are unambiguously historical. The bold text in the RFC says a debate is necessary to apply it in edge cases. I don't believe this one is an edge case, because “1533 to the present” is not unambiguously pre-1991, but anyway this RFC has failed to show support for using historical spelling here. —Michael Z. 17:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I abviously disagree with your interpretation and moved the matter to WP:AE.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

This Kiev Vs. Kyiv spelling problem seems to be only a problem in the Territorial evolution of Russia#Russian Federation section of this article in regard with the Euromaidan protest being mentioned there. But there is no need, and it is indeed a bit misleading, to mention Kyiv specifically in the section Territorial evolution of Russia#Russian Federation. Since Euromaidan was a nationwide protest movement, there where also protest in Kharkiv (actually it was more dangerous to protest there in the beginning days of Euromaidan then it was in Kyiv), Lviv and Dnipropetrovsk etc. (and of course the 2014 Euromaidan regional state administration occupations was also a part of Euromaidan, and those happened far away from Kyiv). So there is no need to mention Ukraine's capital here. I know that non-Kyiv Euromaidan demonstrations where largely ignored by non-Ukrainian media (probably by Russian media on purpose) at the time, but they were held. I made some adjustments in this article according to the reasoning I just mentioned. I tend to avoid articles about Russian things, but I am hoping I made a helpful edit in this one. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Although indeed it appears that Viktor Yanukovych fled his post, he did went first on some strange presidential inspection tour to Kharkiv first, so there is no need to connect "Yanukovych fled his post" with Kyiv also (he seems to have fled to country after this Kharkiv presidential inspection tour). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Conflation of the USSR with Russia

Regarding this edit - I dont understand the justification here. "We do not have a separate page for the USSR" does not make sense as a justification to me. An article is supposed to serve as a collection for relevant information as it pertains to a particular subject, I don't believe it is a collection of random information Wikipedia lacks an article on.PailSimon (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. This article should clearly define its scope, and have the title, intro, and content reflect this. Is the subject the territorial evolution of Russia (including the RSFSR), or of Russia and the Soviet Union? In any case, edits to the article content should clearly distinguish these things. It’s not 1921 any more. —Michael Z. 18:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Modern Russia is also not the same as the Russian Empire. The clarification is certainly welcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, it says "The borders of Russia changed through military conquests and by ideological and political unions in the course of over five centuries (1533–present).", Present. I think this page can be developed this way. My very best wishes (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Maps

This is a subject that needs good maps, and I think the ones currently used have a number of problems.

1. First off, the main "Expansion of Russia (1300–1945)" map. Why do the different regions use different colour schemes? I don't see any real benefit from it, and I think it makes it harder to judge the timeline of the expansion, because it means areas absorbed at similar times may have very different colours and shades.
2. The "Territorial development of the Grand Duchy of Moscow between 1390 and 1533" needs a key on the map itself. If you click on it, you do get a key in the description, but the colours don't match those on the map.
3. The "Russian expansion in Eurasia between 1533 and 1894" does what I think the previous two maps should do (has a key on the map itself, and uses clear colours for different eras), but the key obscures some of the baltic territory, and the image quality is terrible (most of the place names are illegible).
4. The other maps in the "Table of Changes" could also be improved. I think they would be most useful if they highlighted the newly gained territory and (in a different colour) the existing territory. Some do that, but most either only show the new territory, or show it on a map of current Russia borders. Iapetus (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)