Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Podilsko-Voskresenska Line
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	User:Kuban kazak, Novelbank, User:Adrian M. H., Hillock65
Mediator(s)	G1ggy
Comment	Merged into MedCom.

Request Information[edit]

Who are the involved parties?[edit]

User:Akhristov, User:Kuban kazak, User:Adrian M. H., Novelbank, Hillock65, Solarapex, Russianname, Alex Bakharev

What is the involved article(s)?[edit]

Podilsko-Voskresenska Line

What's going on?[edit]

A dispute over whether or not the Russian name of the metro line should be included in the lead of that article and other Kiev Metro articles.

What would you like to change about that?[edit]

A policy/guideline on what languages can be included in Kiev Metro-related articles and in general those related to Ukraine.

Comment regarding evidence[edit]

Could we please restrict (wherever possible) external links to English? Translations will be ok, but pages not readable in English can't be used as evidence, whilst I am mediator (and this would be the case with the majority, not just me). Thanks, - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statements[edit]

Please, no more statements. Discussion in the appropriate section. - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Akhristov[edit]

All articles about historically insignificant parts of Ukraine (such as transportation systems) should be named after their Ukrainian names and should only include the Ukrainian translations of their names, regardless of location in Ukraine. The basis for my proposition is that since Russian does not have official status in Ukraine, adding it to articles breaks the neutral point of view policy.

A country that could be considered to have a similar issue is the United States. United States is faced with an issue of no official language. However, the de-facto language of the U.S. is English, which is almost as good as an official national language. That said, southern California has a huge hispanic population (which, in this case, can be compared to the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine). However, there is no mention of Spanish-language titles in articles about Los Angeles's subway stations. Ukraine, on the other hand, has an official language. Since Los Angeles's subway articles bear no mention of their Spanish names, the Kiev Metro articles should not mention the Russian names. — Alex^(U|C|E) 04:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above, the official Kiev Metro website does not provide Russian names. Providing Russian names in articles is therefore original research, and violates Wikipedia's policies. — Alex^(U|C|E) 04:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Novelbank[edit]

Let me contribute to the discussion by answering the initial questions:

1. The Ukraine article states only one official language. Is this correct?

   Yes. Ukrainian language is the only state language of Ukraine. The Constitution of Ukraine reads:

   The state language of Ukraine is the Ukrainian language. The State ensures the comprehensive development and functioning of the Ukrainian language in all spheres of social life throughout the entire territory of Ukraine. In Ukraine, the free development, use and protection of Russian, and other languages of national minorities of Ukraine, is guaranteed. The State promotes the learning of languages of international communication. The use of languages in Ukraine is guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine and is determined by law.[1]

2. What proportion of the population – in Kiev itself and in the entire country – speak Russian as their first language?

   According to the latest census (2001), among Kiev residents, 2,111 thousand (82.2%) identified themselves as Ukrainians, 337 thousand (13.1%) - Russians, and 120 thousand (4.7%) - other nationalities. [2]. Among Ukrainians, 85.2% named Ukrainian language as the native language, and 14.8% called Russian language as native. Among Russians, 95.9% listed Russian as native, and 3.9% - Ukrainian. [3]. The numbers for Ukraine are essentially similar. [4],[5]

3. Does the Kiev underground system provide alternative place/station names in Russian, like one would expect to find in Wales or Hong Kong, for instance?

   No. Following the Ukrainian independence, Kiev City Administration (the metro is a municipal property) took steps to convert paper work, documentation, public records, etc. from bilingual (predominantly Russian) to Ukrainian. In the metro station signs, announcements, official maps have been exclusively in Ukrainian since early 1990s.

   In the same time, while the usage of Russian language is diminishing among Kiev residents, in daily life many speak Russian or a mixture of Ukrainian and Russian.

   Looking over internet, there are websites that feature Kiev metro in Russian language, with station names translated or transliterated into Russian. (A related question is: If Russian name of Ukrainian metro station is given in the English wikipedia, which Russian name should it be? For example, should it be Майдан Нэзалэжности [6], Майдан Независимости [7], or Площадь Независимости [8]? Should it be the most common name used by Russian residents of Kiev, or by Russians in Russia?). Also, there are websites describing Kiev metro in other languages, for example, in German. As well, there are likely to be publications and tourist guides in many languages that include a map or description of Kiev metro. In fact, as of now the article Kiev Metro is given in the wikipedia in 18 languages.

I'd like also to point out some misleading information in the above discussion.

1. It was stated that Kiev Architectural Union "is state and official", and the fact that union's website is exclusively in Russian was used as an argument that Russian language is used by the city administration. In reality, the union is a limited liability company (товариство з обмеженою відповідальністю) as it stated at the union website main page. It's official (in the sense that it's not illegal), however the union is not part of the city or the state.
2. Lva Tolstoho station is named after famous Russian writer Leo Tolstoy, and inside the station its name on the wall is given in Russian. This is the only known exception of the station signs being exclusively in Ukrainian. The exception by itself is unlikely to validate the need to provide Russian names for all stations in the English wikipedia. --Novelbank 01:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hillock65[edit]

I would like to reiterate what I mentioned on the discussion page. I concur with the above statement that Ukrainian is the only official language in Ukraine. Almost all attempts to introduce Russian as an official language in several cities were overturned by the courts. Whatever some editors' feelings about this issue, the Russian language does not have any official status in Kyiv. None whatsoever. It is one of the minority languages.

Instead of discussing ad nauseum how unjust or untrue it is, I propose again to go to the only valid source in this matter — the official site of the Kyiv metropoliten[9], a government body, run by the city of Kyiv. The city administration was democratically elected and it was their decision to supply all names of the stations in Ukrainian only. If the city and the body that runs the metro decides not to give any Russian translation, then they had very valid reasons to do so. It is their city and their metro. It is not for us to decide but to follow and reflect the source.

Why is it important? There is no denying it, there are political parties in Ukraine advocating for official status of the Russian language. By deviating from the source we will be taking sides in a heated political debate in another country, which is wrong by all standards and most of all by Wikipedia standards. Whatever feelings and arguments are, lets stick to the source and reflect what the source gives. That way we are impartial to any involvement in the politics of the issue. If the situation changes and Russian does become official and the city decides to amend its language policy in the Kyiv metro, we will change the article accordingly. Until then, let's stay true to the source and supply the only official language of the Kyiv metro - Ukrainian. --Hillock65 04:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kuban Cossack[edit]

I would like to say that it is not the case of one country deciding on how to name an English wikipedian article. By taking the Ukrainian governments stance we are equally violating WP:NPOV. Now it is true that Russian language is official only in some parts of the country, into which Kiev is not, however the overwhelming majority in Kiev is Russophone.

Second point was the behaivour of certain user(s), for example the locus of the dispute began with this talk page entry [10] , following which Akhristov (talk · contribs) removed the Russian name a total of 5 times from the article (and that being the only type of edits done to that article). Now Kiev Metro-related articles is a one of the many that I do (see User:Kuban kazak/Metro just to understand my passion, for which both of the barnstars on my page were given), I spent nearly two years writing these articles and there is still a load of work to be done. Therefore when people use political motives and essentially bringing politics into wikipedia (which all three statements above are based on) is not a strict violation of WP:POINT, but is also very offensive to me personally, as this is the way Ukrainian editors thank the person who wrote their articles.

The other thing is that in the past there was a similar dispute, when I originally started writing these articles, I did them titled by their Russian transliterations, not knowing much about naming conventions then. The articles were eventually moved to their Ukrainian names, but one of the main consensuses that took place (look it up in the talk page of Kiev Metro) was that we leave the Russian names second, after the Ukrainian ones in the article.

russian spelling is relevant for Kiev metro, was used for ages, also in tour-books, also largely a russophone city, no one suggests renaming, just providing is entirely appropriate

And this argument really nails it in, How is providing an alternative name that is used by media (irrespective of where it is based) violates original research or NPOV? I am not saying we need to move the article to Podolsko-Voskresenskaya Line, just give an alternative, besides there is no real rule in wikipedian naming conventions which prevent it from doing so.

I can only speculate, but unfortunately given the tone of the comments above, I with regret have to conclude that the issue here is not so much about whether or not this particular line (after all apart from me personally and a a few other keen users on WP:SOVMETRO (of whom only two are active) this line is of low importance) has the Russian alternative name or not, but whether or not, we have to break numerous WP:NOT sub-policies (in particular WP:CENSOR comes to mind) to satisfy a clearly politically driven aggravation attempt.

In retrospect I will repeat my points again, the city of Kiev is largely Russophone by majority. All Russian langauge (in Ukraine and abroad) pulications use the Russian versions of the Metro names rather than their Ukrainian counterparts (unlike for example Baku Metro which would always give transliterated Azeri names rather than their translated Russian versions). Second of all, Russian language in Ukraine is a very politicised and potentially volatile issue, and therefore omitting it from every article is not going to make that problem solved, the reasoning alone is most unencyclopedic. For example they suggest removing Russian from places where Russian is legaly official, like Kharkov and Sevastopol. Would britannica would never omit a Russian spelling for a Ukrainian city? (In an article that will be titled in the Ukrainian transliterated version).

I can only conclude that the users have clear political ambitions and in doing so, given the tone above they risk to undermine the whole reputation of wikipedia as a free encyclopdia. I did not spend countless hours writing all of those articles, some DYK material like Vyrlytsia or Arsenalna for it to be ruthlessly attacked by people who themsleves contributed nothing to it. If that is how they thank me for making such an effort, I am beggining to wonder why I am writing them at all? --Kuban Cossack 17:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Solarapex[edit]

I fully support Akhristov's point of view. I believe that Russian spelling adds confusion. In addition, I would like to mention that in 1997-1998 the United States Board on Geographic Names (which is the official recommendation for spelling geographic names in legal international documents) approved Ukrainian spelling for most of Ukrainian geographic names leaving Russian spelling just as an alternative form (before 1997, Russian was the official spelling). Having subway stations spelled in Russian then does not make much sense. If the Kuban kazak created articles after seeing subway stations in Ukraine (as opposed to reworking content from web sites, one of which I'm involved in), s/he would notice, that there's no mention of Russian spelling whatsoever in station plaques. This article is not the only one with this kind of wars. Putting Russian spelling and removing Ukrainian spelling I take is as a POV and disrespect to Ukrainians (I'm talking not only about Ukrainian speaking Ukrainians, but also as Russian speaking ones (including myself) who are disgusted by this bold move). I try to stay away from editing wars; hence, this is my first and last statement. Solarapex 03:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just make an ammendment that there was not a case when I removed the Ukrainian spelling from name. Never! I always include Ukrianian spelling before Russian, as clearly mentioned in my statement, please don't misinform others. Adding Russian = Removing Ukrainian is an invention and one that I will leave to pathetic nationalists. --Kuban Cossack 10:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dnipropetrovsk_Metro&diff=132817261&oldid=126834881 . When I say "Ukrainian spelling" I mean English spelling based on Ukrainian. The same goes with "Russian spelling". Just want to clarify on my terminology. Solarapex 11:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ezhiki[edit]

Being more of an observer than a participant, I would nevertheless like to make a comment of my own. It is regrettable that both sides seem to look at the issue as a frame surrounding current problematic Ukrainian-Russian relationships. We, as Wikipedians, should consider whether having those alternative names in the text aids readers above all else.

So, would having those names be helpful? In my view, it would be. If Wikipedia were a travel guide (the likes of Wikitravel), then having Russian names in the metro articles would probably be quite useless. As the Ukrainian editors above rightfully mentioned, Russian names are no longer officially used; not on the maps, not on the station plaques. Wikipedia, however, is not a travel guide, it is a compendum of information. No one could deny that numerous works (academic, reference, and otherwise) exist in which these metro stations are referred to by their Russian names, if only in historical context. For the sake of usefulness and completeness, these names should be mentioned in the articles (although, I admit, maybe not in the lead). We should not deny readers information because of personal preferences of Ukrainian editors as doing so would be harmful to Wikipedia.

The bottom line is: if a Russian name can be referenced, then it should be provided. Where the best place for it would be (in the lead, in the history section, somewhere else), I'd leave to the involved parties to decide, but I don't see how removing them altogether is going to be of any benefit.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the Russian names are so special (as opposite to, say, French) so that they need to be included in English articles that feature independent Ukraine? Speaking of newly built metro stations, Russian is not on station signs, official maps, or in official documentation. It's true that Russian names are mentioned in Russian language media (newspapers, travel guides, etc), but so are English names in English media, German names in German media and so on. English articles include interwiki links to Russian language articles in Russian wikipedia, and the reason to go beyond that is missing in your statement. --Novelbank 17:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I explicitly stated that Russian names should only be included when their usage can be referenced (and for most of Ukrainian metro stations it can be). If you can find references of equal quality for French/German/Tagalog or whatever other names, I do not see the reason not to include them as well. As to why "Russian is so special", I am not really sure if you are asking this seriously. Surely, you know that Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union for quite a while, with Russian being widely spoken? Finally, as for interwikies, they are not there to provide readers with information on how the article's title is translated into other languages; they are there to give readers means to find articles on the covered topic in Wikipedia editions in other languages. Sometimes the relation is not even 1:1, and interwikies could lead to a closely related, but not identical topic, which is why it is not wise to rely on them for translation.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of Russian language publications with Russian names of Kiev metro stations does not validate the need to include such names in English encyclopedia. As you correctly pointed out, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. There is no need to include all variety of languages in the leading paragraph of each article. (Think of Statue of Liberty for example. There are publications in many languages that describe and address the existence of the statue (including 100+ thousand of internet articles in Russian according to Google), yet it does not validate the need to include the name of statue in hundreds languages). What could validate the usage of languages other than English in English wikipedia are the facts that indicate that non-English words are inherent characteristic of described object. The Ukrainian names as such are the part of the Kiev metro stations. They are listed on station walls, signs, station guides, etc. They are intrinsic part of the stations. For the newly built stations the Russian names (for better or worse) are not the part of. --Novelbank 20:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but you are still missing my point completely. Of course, any given metro station (or, indeed, anything at all) would have names in other languages, and those names can be referenced. However, of names in all languages only Ukrainian and Russian serve as bases for romanized English names. As names of Ukrainian metro stations are routinely romanized from Russian in English sources on the subject, those names (as well as the Russian originals) should be given in the Wikipedia article as they will be expected there by some readers. Borrowing your terminology, the fact that romanized Russian names are used to refer to the Ukrainian metro station is the "intrinsic part" of those stations, and that is why this piece of information should not be excluded. All in all, this is not about existence of Russian language sources (which are completely irrelevant here), it's about existence of English language sources which base their transliterations on Russian names. If one can cite such sources next to the Russian name in the metro station article, then the Russian name stays; otherwise it is removed. I can't see how this course of action is unjustified or unreasonable.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I was missing your point as this is the first time you explicitly mentioned the issue of romanization. But it seems that we both stand on the same theoretical grounds. We reached understanding that the issue is not about the existence of Russian language sources. And I agree with the approach you expressed that if there exists an established English name, which has been transliterated through Russian then such name needs be mentioned. With respect to the Podilsko-Voskresenska Line (which is still in construction) to the best of my knowledge, English names transliterated through Russian are absent in English sources (I'm getting by Google zero number of webpages in English (outside of wikipedia) with the Russian romanized name of the metro line). It would be of significant value in resolving the dispute if you could confirm that, or cite sources that indicate the opposite. -- Novelbank 23:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we reached an understanding. As for your request for sources, I cannot provide those as my knowledge on the topic is quite limited; I only commented on the procedural part of the issue and on underlying wiki philosophy that should guide us when addressing it. I'm sure, however, that Kuban will be more than happy to provide those sources if they exist. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator response[edit]

Hi all. If it's ok with you guys, I'll take this case (it's my first, but I should be ok). If you object to me taking it, please say so, but otherwise I'm going to take a look at the evidence over the next few days, and try and decide on something. - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes[edit]

OK, as far as I see it (correct me if I'm wrong), one side of the argument wants the Russian name removed from this, and all other Kiev Metro articles. His claim is that it's an NPOV violation to keep them when Russian is not the official language.

However, the other side wants the Russian name kept, claiming that because Russian is the most spoken language in those parts, it would breach NPOV to not include it.

So, let's take a look at the 2nd pillar of Wikipedia: that related to NPOV. I quote directly from WP:FIVE

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". (bold formatting added)

Could this settle it? I know that Russian is not the official language, but it is the most spoken language in that area. Relating this to American articles is like saying WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - it doesn't solve THIS problem. On the other hand, adding the Russian name to the article presents "multiple points of view." We will still be "presenting each point of view accurately" as we will be using the Ukrainian name as well (and as the spelling of the article name will be the Ukrainian translation, as mentioned in Kuban Cossack's statement. As far as I see it, presenting both the Russian and Ukrainian names (presenting the Ukrainian first, and discussing all matters from a Ukrainian perspective for the rest of the article where appropriate) would enable readers to "understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as 'the truth' or 'the best view.'"

In short, my proposed resolution is to include both the Ukrainian and Russian names to the article. The article is protected until June 17, so we have until then to discuss it anyway. Go for it! - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 22:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuban Cossack's reply[edit]

Well that excatly how things were until Akhristov suggested to remove the Russian from the articles. This peace existed for ... ever since we began writing articles on Ukraine. That is the convention that I used (and will always use) since essentially December 2005. It is something that really went uncontested for all this period, and raising the issue of removing Russian shocked me, since essentially this is not Russification, Ukrainian will always go first (and I myself ensured it always did), it is always used in the main body of the text (unless we are referring to a historical time period when the Russian/Polish or whatever other name was relevant) and it will always be used for titles (unless of course there exists a more common English name, such as Kiev or Odessa per WP:NC(UE)). Now I cannot see the reasoning why the above conditions are not enough for the people who insist on using Ukrainian. Using Ukrainian does not mean we cannot add the Russian name.

So my condition is as follows, please, use Ukrainian for titles, use it in wikilinks and main body text, use its cyrrilic spelling straight after the bold title, just leave Russian in there after Ukrainian. However it seems that political convictions make this simple and rational consensus unacceptable to those who want to see Russian eradicated from the articles out of whatever phobic reasons they have to such an excellent language, that despite not being official in Ukraine, on the course of the last 17 years, not only survived, but blossomed in Kiev. --Kuban Cossack 22:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stay calm. Whilst I agree with what you're saying, your tempo isn't going to help. I await a response to this from Akhirstov. - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 22:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hillock65's reply[edit]

With all due respect, it seems to me, presenting station names in Ukrainian and Russian is not a different point of view. It is a statement. A bold statement that Kyiv is officially a bilingual city. Which is contrary to the facts and to what the official site of the city metropolitan states. Metro article by itself, has nothing to do with politics and presenting Kyiv metro and the city of Kyiv as an officially bilingual city is indeed POV. Second language, where it does not belong in reality is not a different point of view, a different view on the name of the stations or a number of stops or material used in construction could be viewed as "multiple points of view". So if multiple points of view should prevail, why only Russian and why particularly Russian and not any other language? So, then should be German and maybe Belarusian, or some other language. There is no multiple views on that - Kyiv is officially unilingually Ukrainian language city. By chosing particularly Russian we are making a statement, not a different point of view. Making political statements with assertions of Kyiv's bilingugal status is not neutral, and is not supported by facts. I suggest we follow the government's decision on it. If the city of Kyiv on any of its sites, (sorry,English version is not working for some reason) [11][12], lists station names in Russian, then that will decide the issues once and for all. If those who want to change the appearance of article can find official document presenting them in both languages then, no further discussions will be necessary. As a compromise, in order to take the politics issue out of the article, I propose removing Ukrainian name as well. If editors agree, the articles about Kyiv metro should be in English only. This is metro article, keep politics out of it. --Hillock65 23:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to agree with Hillock65 on this one. Russians are one of minorities in Kiev (note I said minorities; the majority of Kiev is Ukrainians). With the point Kuban Kazak is making, it would be justified to include the language of every minority in those articles. However, that is not the case. Those languages are not official languages. — Alex^(U|C|E) 23:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are we discussing? The namings in Kiev Metro or a general guideline which Akhristov suggested? One of your links gave a fully flexible Russian version [13]. The link there is btw of the Kiev municipal administration. So like it or not, the presense of fully functional Russian langauge version of the site certainly recognises the language is important to Kiev and is not neglected. However the same point again, wikipedian articles are not set to follow Ukrainian constitution, and its naming policies (if they have them). Our encyclopedia is international and has to account for tendencies in whichever region we are discussing. Now claiming assertions of bilinguality are not neutral is also a POV, its an assertion that can be confirmed by looking at simple websites of highest official level. ArchUnion, Kiev Miska Vlada... even the President's website has a Russian version. Akhristov talked about de facto statuses in the original dispute, would that not be a signature of having Russian as a language that is not just there, that it has something special? --Kuban Cossack 23:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuban kazak, please do not forget my previous statement. A lot of websites are multilingual. Russian is used widely around the world, and is therefore provided on the website together with English. — Alex^(U|C|E) 23:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So here you are recognising that Russian is not just a minority language. And according to Russian language in Ukraine is considered native for 30% of the Ukrainian population and is spoken by 43–46% of the population of the country (in other words a similar proportion to Ukrainian). Now those numbers are not invented, nor are they small or insignificant. So if fact you are saying that still does not warrant its use in an international encyclopedia. --Kuban Cossack 23:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you got my point wrong. Russian is widely used worldwide. You can't say that English is a minority language in Ukraine, either. — Alex^(U|C|E) 23:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So now Russian is not a minority language in Ukraine? (Constrasts sharply with you were saying before but nonetheless very pleasent to hear that :). So in retrospect, if it is not a minoriy language (and 14 million people are not minority by any measure, that's good we are agreeing on some points). Thus what prevents you from accepting it in an article about say a Metro line after the Ukrainian and one that is titled in its translit version of Ukrainian? --Kuban Cossack 23:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quit twisting everything that I say, it is not going to help resolve this conflict. — Alex^(U|C|E) 23:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twisting? So basically you're saying that we did not agree on the point above? Well talk about who wants the conflict resolved or who wants it to continue. --Kuban Cossack 23:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop it. I do not have any hidden messages in my comments, they are exactly as they read. This is my last comment here until G1ggy comments on the situation. — Alex^(U|C|E) 23:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TAG's reply[edit]

There are following fact - stations will be called in same language as context there they appear. Like in newspaper, company website or advertisements or phone conversion in Russian/Ukrainian language - station will be spelled in same language. Usage of Russian names on Wikipedia add value to articles as they become searchable (Google/Yahoo/MSN) by additional keywords (in same language as people first heard about them). Provided that quality of metro articles on others Russian/Ukrainian wikipedias is bellow English version - listing station names in two major languages has huge effect on how often people will find needed for them information. Regarding the fact that there is no official names in Russian language - it can be safe to add "also referred as <alternative name>" there need (in order to not confuse people - can be added as footnote). --TAG

Wikipedia needs to present the current state of the world, not to make assumptions on what will be in future, or attempt to accommodate the need of searchability for non-English languages. If someone feels that the quality of articles on Kiev metro is low in Russian, German or Greek wikipedia, then the first best would be to follow the straightforward approach of improving such articles, instead of advocating for "fixes" through English wikipedia by including Russian, German or Greek letters here, especially in the leading paragraph of the article. --Novelbank 23:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was my point of view giving better context on how good it will be for end-users, but I've got yours. Please take a look on this guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names):

Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e., (Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3). or (ar: name1, be: name2, cs: name3). As an exception to alphabetical order, the local official name should be listed before other alternate names if it differs from a widely accepted English name.. For me it's clear that should be done as there are clearly Russian name exists for stations. --TAG 23:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you apply the guidelines you just cited for the Podilsko-Voskresenska Line, and explain how you reached the conclusion that the Russian name should be listed. I found zero English language sources that use the Russian romanized name of the line, and I don't think the underground area of the metro line construction was previously inhabited by humans. --Novelbank 00:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline I've provided is closes matching guideline that discuss this matter. There is no Wikipedia:Naming conventions (metro station names) page yet and there no guidelines on lower level that override this guideline (i.e. if you will show somewhere words like "in contrast to geo names, we must NOT list alternative names for objects" - I will accept your point of view). Regarding inhabited area - words in guidelines were to describe some select set of people who must be taken in account to define on how naming must be made - in geonames guidelines it's was not good to say "or living nearby" (as nearby will be non-trivial). Even more - if you will take a notice on how metro station names used in Moscow - you will see that they are used to represent some kind of geographical location (area surrounding it) - so there are actually people living "under" station name. It's not that clear in Kyiv - but gain more and more wider acceptance. Names in Russian is fact - and even government owned companies use Russian name in correct context (making it relevant) - like on Boryspil airport, Kyiv City Administration.

This dispute is not about romanization of station name in Russian (I see small reasons for it) - but about listing or not it at all. German and Greek are out of questions here as they did not pass 10% rule, while Russian do. --TAG 00:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning the applicability of the guidelines. I agree that they closely match the subject we are debating about (Podilsko-Voskresenska Line). I just cannot catch the way you apply the guidelines in order to reach the concusion that the Russian name should be listed.

The requirement "used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place" was written to cover situations when a geographic place over its history was occupied by different groups of people. For example, this validates the inclusion of German name for Kalingrad. However, Podilsko-Voskresenska Line is a newly constructed metro line, i.e. a new geograpic object. It didn't exist in the past. It exists now and (hopefully) will serve people in future. It's getting its history from now on. (Consider, Moscow vs. Hotel Moskva, Kiev vs. Dynamo Kyiv as examples of further evolution of names).

The requirement "used by at least 10% of sources in the English language" call for sources in English language. You didn't provide any such sources. The sources you provided demonstrate the usage of Russian language, not the usage of Russian names in English sources. --Novelbank 02:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty much sure that you will NOT find any usage of Russian names in English. They will use English names or transliterated ;-) As I've said - transliteration is outside of scope of this dispute. --TAG 03:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether Russian is relevant in this case or not. That is basically what the discussion is about. — Alex^(U|C|E) 23:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Bakharev's proposal[edit]

Guys Kuban Cossack is doing a great job on Ukrainian Metro article. He is almost a one man wiki project. I think he deserves a strong commending for his hard work and a sort of additional freedom in presentation of the materials. I already gave him a barnstar but if I were an Ukrainian editor I would give another one just for the Metro articles. On the other hand I do not see any compelling reasons to keep the Russian names of the stations built after Ukraine had gained its independence. As I understand the names were never officially announced or put on the signs. I am not even sure there are officially set Russian names for the newely built stations. That is very different from the old stations that had Russian names announced for years, that had the Russian names all over books, signs, etc. Also the official Russian names for the Ukrainian Metro stations were quite unusual and exotic: they used Russian transcription of Ukrainian words (Zhovtenevaya stantsiya instead of Oktyabr'skaya stantsiya, etc.). I propose to keep two names for the stations built in Soviet times and only Ukrainian name for the stations built in independent Ukraine Alex Bakharev 01:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what my original proposal was. Sadly, things escalated out of control, and some editors were for consistency. — Alex^(U|C|E) 01:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One note though. I guess, I can explain how that became a one man project. No one wants to get involved in editing wars with Kuban Kazak. So all metro/subway articles are left for him/herself. Okay, I'm out of this discussion now. Solarapex 03:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the proposal by Alex Bakharev --Russianname 04:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst we appreciate your participation, Russianname, this isn't a vote, but an attempt at compromise. Speaking of compromise, what do people think of Alex Bakharev's proposal? I don't think there is any point in continuously arguing which language is official, and thus which language is appropriate for use. Both sides have stern, inflexible opinions in that regard, and I really have no idea. What do we think of the suggestion to use the Russian and Ukrainian names for stations built in soviet times, and the Ukrainian names only for stations built by an independent Ukraine? Kuban Kazak, this question is mainly directed at you (I'm not singling you out by any means though) because it already has Alex's support as far as I see.

On another note, I don't think it's a good idea, as mentioned earlier by Kuban Kazak, to be discussing a general guideline as to naming. Reasons for this are obviously the language issues which we are having great trouble agreeing with. I think it's better just to settle this case, then use it as an example when necessary in future debates (if we agree on Alex B's proposal, I think that could become a guideline, but let's not discuss guidelines yet). - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to reject Alex B's proposal. First of all it is inconsistent having some articles include Russian and others exclude it. That is just nonsense. First of all where do you draw the line? A lot of stations that are presently still being opened construction and certainly planning has began in Soviet times for example the still unopened Lvivska Brama. The Podilsko-Voskresenska Line was too in planning stage back in 1980s.

Second, it is incorrect to tie Russian language to Soviet times, as shown by my links to Presidents website and the like Russian language is certainly recognised by Ukraine (even if it is not written in the law officially) as a little more than just a minority language.

Thirdly can User:Solarapex keep personal attacks out, we are in an international encyclopedia not a ragtag pointing fingers group. And actually User:DDima is the only other person who helps me, a UKRAINIAN btw, yet on the course of me knowing him we not only became very good freinds but also he actually founded WP:SOVMETRO. Thus Solarapex, I thank you very much for your kind words and recognition of my work. ... (censored text follows). --Kuban Cossack 10:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G1ggy, I'm fine with this proposal with having the Ukrainan spelling (i.e. English spelling based on Ukrainian spelling) listed first as the current one. I think it is fair. It also goes in line with the U.S. BGN recommendations with regard to geographic names in Ukraine (Here I'm more referring to changes in recommendations in 1997-1998). I'm also fine even if the line of changes moves from 1991 to 1998. But I would like emphasize that I think that removing Ukrainian spelling (i.e. English spelling based on Ukrainian spelling) is not acceptable (like that happened with Dnipropetrovsk Metro in the example I mentioned above). As a general guideline, I don't see why the U.S. BGN recommendations should be rejected where they recommend to use Ukrainian spelling (i.e. English spelling based on Ukrainian spelling) as an official one, and Russian spelling (i.e. English spelling based on Russian spelling) as an alternative form. Solarapex 12:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I did not understand you the first time round, let me clarify on my position:

The tranliteration is really (unless it specifcially differs from the title) IMO is excessive, check out WP:CYR. So adding things like Dnipropetrovs'ke Metro and Dnepropetrovskoye Metro is unnecessary, just leave Днiпропетровське Метро and Днепропетровское Метро. With respect to titles of stations, then the title itself is transliterated so for example an article titled Podilsko-Voskresenska Line would have a lead:

• Podilsko-Voskresenska Line (Ukrainian: Подільсько-Воскресенська; [Подольско-Воскресенская Podolsko-Voskresenskaya] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help))...
• Kiev Metro (Ukrainian: Київське метро; Russian: Киевское метро)...

As you can see Kiev Metro is an english word, whilst Podilsko-Voskresnka is a Ukrainian transliteration, and in such a case when we already have an English word a translit is indeed excessive. --Kuban Cossack 12:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 'transliteration' is the right word. Thank you. Solarapex 04:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuban, you asked where to draw the line? The proposal was that stations built (constructed, not planned) in Soviet times include the Russian names, stations built after Soviet times don't. For your 2nd point, as already noted, I really think we should steer away from the "official language" debates. We aren't getting anywhere, and I really have no "mediation" power there.

I'd also like to draw your attention to the Statement by Ezhiki, which points out that it would be helpful, encyclopedic-ly helpful, to include the Russian names where cited (mostly, this would be before Soviet times, as far as I can see), "for the sake of usefulness and completeness". Kuban, I really appreciate your passion in this debate, but I don't think you're going to win anyone over, when a decent, neutral compromise seems to have been offered (see below, new comments there if appropriate). - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 23:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise proposed by G1ggy[edit]

1. Articles about stations built in Soviet (pre December 1, 1991) times will include both the Ukrainian and Russian names in the lead paragraph, provided that both can be verified by a reliable source (Which shouldn't be a problem).
2. Articles about stations built after Soviet (pre December 1, 1991) times will include the Ukrainian name in the lead paragraph, and the Russian name in a history section if it can be verified by a reliable source.
3. If it can be verified by a reliable source that the Russian spelling is used by the vast majority of people, and is seen as the "official language" when referring to a particular station built after Soviet (pre 1991) times, (ie. no one calls this station by its Ukrainian name, everyone uses the Russian version) then the Russian spelling will be included in the lead paragraph (and cited).
4. The article will be named with the Ukrainian spelling, with a redirect from the Russian spelling. - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 07:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Sounds good. — Alex^(U|C|E) 23:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• G1ggy, I support this in general with a few minor additions. I have to mention them to leave very little space to further conflicts.
  • 1) If construction of a station began prior to the specified date that means that the name is preliminary (or technical as we speak). In most cases, the official names are announced a few months before the openning, but in order to avoid ambiguity, I'd use the openning date.
  • 2) Cutover date. December 1st, when Ukraine reaffirmed its independence after a referendum or August 24th when Ukraine declared its independence. It is not a big difference, but there is a special case (to make things comlicated):
  • 3) Renaming. During 1991 some stations got renamed. What do you suggest to do with those ones? The dates may not be known for sure.
  • 4) Article names. Must be based on Ukrainian transliteration with an open question about Russian transliterated redirects.
  • There are a couple more minor issues, but I'd leave them out for a while. People need to chill. Solarapex

• • • 1) As would I. But I really doubt that there were stations proposed before Soviet times and completed after. If there were, then we use the completion date as the "official date" (so in the example I just gave, we would have Ukrainian name in the lead paragraph, and the Russian name in a history section.
    • 2) I'll go with December 1st, just because it's my birthday ;) And because I understand that to be the day it was fully, officially, no longer Russian.
    • 3) If it was renamed in 1991, it must have been built in Soviet times. Therefore, the first point of my proposal applies; both spellings are used in the lead.
    • 4) Added. - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 07:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • 1) Oh, there were plenty. Due to lack of funding in late 1980s. For example, in Kharkiv, construction of the 3rd line began in 1984 and got comleted in 1995. Moreover, the way rapid transit systems are planned is that there is a plan for a few decades ahead. In all three cities + Donetsk (where the construction of the first statoins got started in late 1980s) those plans still has not been completed. Let take Kharkiv again as an example. The plan was developed in 1960s. It's just about 60% done from that plan.
      • 2) I gotcha. I'll try to memorize this. :)
      • 3) The problem with this approach is this. One of reasons of all this discussion is that line and station names may be referred in publications. If a station got renamed after the cutover date, there will be no references to spelling based on Russian names. The what is the point to mention Russian spelling. I agree, that for the previous name both spelling may be provided.
      • 4) Thank you for this one and the other three. Solarapex 11:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1)In the case of Kharkiv, we'll have to go with the Russian name until it's completed then.
        • 2)Turns out it's my date of birth too :O - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 21:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly reject. If articles should be divided into pre- and post- independence, then they should be named like History of Podilsko-Voskresenska Line. We are trying to reflect the state of things now. If the governing body provides names in three or five languages - provide all the five of them for all I am concerned, but if there is only one - please do not invent things and stay true to the source and show only one.--Hillock65 14:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hillock, we are reflecting the state of things now, and giving mention to the history of the station, all in one article. If there are 5 languages provided by the governing body, other then for the purposes of translating their website into different languages, then by all means provide all of them. But only if the governing body proposes those as somewhat official names, not just to help translate their website into French/German/Romanian/Mandarin/Maori/whatever other language you'll find there. - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 21:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am truly glad we appear to be on the same page here. It has been my argument all along. It is my assumption that we are talking about the most important part - the lead. If in Kharkiv the metro administration provides bilingual names, so they should be named in the lead. But if the Kyiv metro administration provides one only, so that should be enough for one language only in the lead. In the body I have no problems with mentioning it's name in as many languages as there are, including nicknames and jargon names if there are any. My concern was about the lead, which in false appearance of biligual status will distort the true state of things as reflected by the metro administration. If that is the nature of consensus, I am all for it. --Hillock65 22:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, why the pre- and post- independence should matter at all if the emphasis is on what languages the metro administration provided?--Hillock65 22:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

I have to (partially) reject this proposal

1. First of all by assuming that Russian has to be resticted to pre-1991 stations, this causes major problems and at best see Beresteiska article. First of all it was not always a 1:1 Russian and Ukrainian usage. There were phases initially the Metro was actually all-Ukrainian, then during the 80s it became all-Russian. So do is it going to a single case for each station?
2. The other case it is wrong to separate the pre-1991 metro stations with post-1991 metro stations. As shown by Lvivska Brama example, construction was well underway in the Soviet times, yet the station remains frozen.
3. What is used by more people than Ukrainian? All Russian language publications will always give the Russian name. Most Metro fansites use Russian name, in fact here is a good example: [14] take a look at Kiev's entry (click on any line). The latin is based on the German spelling, but it is transliterated from Russian. True it is only a fansite, but how verifiable does it have to be?
4. That is something that I always agreed on and never challenged, I still can't understand why that was not enough for some of the Ukrainian editors to accept. (Many did btw, and proportionally speaking the longer the Ukrainian wikipedians stayed on en-wiki, the higher the chance would be for them to accept this.) --Kuban Cossack 11:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) I still think that it would be named with the Russian spelling because it was completed in Soviet times. I don't see how it being "all Ukrainian" for periods would effect the proposal.

2) See my response to Solarplex, and his Kharkiv example, above.

3) That's not the point. I use Romanian more then I use English at home, if there was an article written about my house, would it be in Romanian, or would it give my Romanian name in the lead solely because of that? - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 21:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Wikipedias as an example[edit]

I'd like to suggest to the mediator (and all other involved parties) to look at other Wikipedias, e.g. Dutch (nl:Koerenivsko-Tsjervonoarmiejska-lijn) as an example. There is spelling based on Ukrainian names didn't cause a conflict. Solarapex 18:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good example to show where the biases of certain editors come from. Dutch language encyclopedia used the available source on the subject matter and reflected the correct language in the lead. The whole issue of splitting articles into pre and post independence bothers me. Are we writing on history of Ukrainian metro stations that we have to divide into pre and post independence? Do Germans divide their metro into pre and post WWII? What about French? Would there be names in German to reflect what the stations were called during the Nazi occupation? Let's get serious. I would like to reiterate my previous suggestion to go to the official source and see in what languages the station is named now, not 16 or 40 years ago and take the politics out of it. Take example of the Dutch or the Chinese [15]. True to the source in another article about the Kharkiv metro, they unlike us stay true to the source and give two languages, just what the city provided officially: nl:Radjanska (metrostation). Whould there be three or more, I am sure, where there is no POV-pushing, the source will be accurately reflected. Instead of using metro station to push politics and POV in this encyclopedia, we should be concentrating on the source, and if Dnipropetrovsk or Kharkiv metro gives two languge versions so be it, but please don't add what is not there now in the Kyiv metro stations. The site gives only one language - Ukrainian, and splitting articles into pre- and post- is not a very good solution. Staying true to the source is. --Hillock65 01:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not make bold assumptions like comparing France in WWII under German occupation to Ukraine, who was a founding republic of the USSR. In other cases, I am happy with the Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk Metro, at least we can now concentrate on one system. However, why is it necessary to have double standards for Kiev? A city that is russophone and whose state administration (which is higher in authority than the Metro administration) provides a Russian version of its webpage?--Kuban Cossack 11:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will not even go into that discussion, one more time: stay true to the source - if the official governing body of Kyiv metro provides station names biligually - do so, if not stay true to the source and do not invent things. Period.--Hillock65 13:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing untrue about my sources, besides the website had a Russian version, and the Kiev city administration (which incidently has a Russian version) is the body that ultimately rules the metro, as Kyivsky Metropoliten is a municipal company, not an independent one. --Kuban Cossack 16:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you provide the source, where the City of Kyiv metro administration provides station names in both languages, the issue will be closed immediately. --Hillock65 17:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Three news flashes from the city of Kiev administration: [16],[17] ,[18]
2. And for the icing, from the Ukrainian President's website: [19].

In all the cases above the language is Russian! As you say Hillock, true to the source! Which is why concerning the article invovled Boryspilska has the words Бориспольская (Borispolskaya) in the lead. Actually G1ggy, would that be enough to include it in the lead?--Kuban Cossack 21:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably experiencing problems with comprehension, I will highlight in bold the parts that you chose to ignore: provide the source, where the City of Kyiv metro administration provides station names in both languages. Do you want me to do it in colour to facilitate your comprehension of the words City of Kyiv metro administration? I can do that, just tell me what colour. Bilingual or trilingual sites are not the source, we need the source to establish that the names on record are indeed officially biligual. Enough beating around the bush. You have a wonderful ability to drag this discussion into perpetuity, if you continue to impede the dialogue, I will resign from this mediation. Enough is enough. --Hillock65 21:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hillock65, names does not meed to be official in order to be included. Just like with city/mountain names - alternative names are allowed to be included per WP:NCGN. As a compromise I propose to include only Russian name, without Russian->English transliteration in order to not introduce new English names. --TAG 22:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if, other alternative names are allowed, so that would merit inclusion of Belarusian, Yiddish and other languages that are represented in Kyiv? On what grounds should this inclusion happen? Because there is another unofficial name? Where is it coming from? From imagination of some users or from some reliable sources (per WP:Verifiability)? Would that mean that for Moscow metro Ukrainian name is allowed too, since there is almost a million of Ukrainians in Moscow? --Hillock65 23:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, I don't think a metro station can be viewed as a geographical location, the WP:NCGN application is questionable here. --Hillock65 23:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation[edit]

Well, I regret to say that the case is becoming unfair. I would have settled for any outcome of the MedCab; however, I don't think people should be dragged into this dispute by invitation (example: [20]). Therefore, I resign from this case. — Alex^(U|C|E) 02:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, there exist a collection of "please join" for Irpen, DDima, Ghirlandajo, Alex Bakharev, Russianname, Ezhiki, which is indeed a questionable practice. --Novelbank 03:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong about invitations to participate in the discussion if and only if all sides are invited. I'm not sure if the invited people above represent all sides. Also, keep in mind that facts can beat the quantity, of course if the mediator is impartial. Solarapex 04:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, that's your decision, but I do appreciate for bringing up this matter. Thank you. Solarapex 04:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will do my best to be impartial. In any case, I've take note of who was invited, so that any proposals or comments from them may be treated with extra care if necessary. Alex, I have left a message on your talk page too. - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 07:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you were the mediator who contacted people who were actually involved. You didn't drag more people into this. — Alex^(U|C|E) 20:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actual status of Russian[edit]

I was in Kiev some time ago. Despite of not being quite familiar with the unofficial condition of Russian language in Ukraine, I don't think that Russian is common in Kiev as much as in Donbass or some other prevalently Russian-speaking regions. Hence, also bearing in mind the option of Russian interwiki, I think that there should be no Russian name in the article. --Brand спойт 12:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that people are not ready yet for a consensus and the discussion is going into a conflict spiral. In order to narrow down this discussion and stay on track, let me ask all of you these simple questions (below). Please give a concise answer (2-4 lines) without 'answers for answers'.Solarapex

Thank you Solarpex. - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. What do you think is the purpose of having the Russian name in an article?

• As a name that is used (if it is currently used) on plaques and schemas (placed in trains and stations) at present time. Solarapex 23:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• To assist in historical context, and modern use where appropriate. - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Generally second languge will provide additional information on the subject. My fear that in this case it's inclusion is done for political reasons as its actual use on signs and in the metro is non-existent.--Hillock65 07:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• To inform of station names that are likely to be written/ spoken/ observed in English language literature/ verbal conversations/ or observed when such names are intrinsic part of the stations (e.g. name written on station walls in Cyrillic letters, etc). English wikipedia is not a foreign language guide. –-Novelbank 17:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• To illustrate that the Russian name for any station is as prominent as the Ukrainian one in Ukraine, and certainly abroad.--Kuban Cossack 17:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My English is not so strong, I guess, as I couldn't find what 'porminant' is. Also, who stated this? Or was it anonymous? Solarapex 17:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, forgot to sign, and it was me, there was a typo...prominent, definition. --Kuban Cossack 17:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Russian name as prominent as the Ukrainian one? In the case of Kyiv metro it is not. It is not even mentioned on the official metro website! Where else are they prominent? In the stations? On the ground, in the street? No! Nothing of the kind! Some users are just trying to invent it and inlate its prominence.--Hillock65 01:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. What do you think is the purpose of having the Russian transliterated name in the article?

• As a link to a name that is used in publications in English. Solarapex
• To assist in understanding of the article, and to add historical context. - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If the Metro governing body provides it on its website it should be there to supply additional information on the subject.--Hillock65 07:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Again, to inform of station names that are likely to be written/ spoken/ observed in English language literature/ verbal conversations/ or observed when such names are intrinsic part of the stations (e.g. names written on station walls, etc). –-Novelbank 17:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Same as my reply to point one, speaking of which this came to mind and a 23.3 : 1 ration in favour of the Russian version certainly has to allow its addition.--Kuban Cossack 17:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  In reality there are only 46 unique references to Shulyavskaya vs. 60 for Shuliavska and 119 for Shulyavska. (In the googlefight that you provided out of 9,500 hints for Shulyavskaya 9,000+ of them are coming from the same website)/

  But if you are advocating for inclusion of minor forms such as Russian into the leading paragraph, then we certainly need to incude Kyiv metro for Kiev Metro, and probably as well the related adjective forms (such as the one you removed from Dnipropetrovsk Metro article). --Novelbank 20:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough although Kiev Metro is an English term, whilst the translit from the Ukrainian one would be Kyivske Metro. In terms of giving the alternative spellings, I have no problem with that. --Kuban Cossack 13:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Who stated this? Solarapex 17:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Me again... sorry about this. --Kuban Cossack 17:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. What do you think is the purpose of having the Ukrainian name in the article?

• As a name that is used (if it is currently used) on plaques and schemas (placed in trains and stations) at present time. Solarapex 23:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It's the official name, and should thus be used in accordance with Wikipedia's 5 pillars. - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If Ukrainian is the official name provided by the Metro administration, it should be there.--Hillock65 07:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Once again, to inform of station names that are likely to be written/ spoken/ observed in English language literature/ verbal conversations/ or observed when such names are intrinsic part of the stations (e.g. names written on station walls, etc). –-Novelbank 17:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• To comply with WP:NC, to add the original text from which the title was derived.--Kuban Cossack 17:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It looks like everyone is agree that the Ukrainian name must be provided. Can we consider that this issue is closed? Solarapex 17:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that was ever challenged, so yes let's close this issue. --Kuban Cossack 17:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Who do you think is the primary audience of English Wikipedia?

• People whose native language is English. Solarapex 23:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• People who speak English at a decent level (Babel level 3 and higher). - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• People of all cultures, with some grasp of the English language.--Hillock65 07:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm assuming that people are more likely to read an article in native language if such is available of decent quality. Therefore, people who are knowledgeable of English at native or near native level is the primary audience. People who are capable of understanding English is the total audience. --Novelbank 17:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Primarily English speaking audience, my articles in particular would be intersting to native Kievans in general and Metrophiles from Kiev, Ukraine, Russia or other wikipedias who would then use the resources as the basis of like articles in their languages (after all GFDL allows that) --Kuban Cossack 17:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Not only English-only - but more important multilingual people (as they outnumber monolingual). There are high chances that they know Russian language (more then Ukrainian) well and will use it (so will be good to stations names in Russian - and do not mix Ukrainian names in Russian talks). --TAG 22:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This will help to understand where every participant of this discussion stands. Solarapex 23:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the answers. I'll try to summarize this and outline a way to resolve this issue tomorrow; I need to get some sleep. In the meanwhile, please refrain from making statements that may fire up the conflict. Thanks! Solarapex 03:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions[edit]

To avoid speculations, I tried to check what names are used in English literature in a bookstore, the Boston Public Library, and the State Transporation library. References to rapid transit systems in Ukraine are very very scarce. More recent books use Ukrainian transliteration. e.g. in Robert Schwandl's book. Some books even provide translated names (e.g. Traktorny Zavod as Tractor Works), Russian transliteration is mentioned in old books translated from russian books. There are no references to Ukrainian transliterated names in old books. With regard to usage of names. There are 3 facts I have to mention:

• Old names often are more common than the new ones.
• Very often station nicknames are more common than thier Russian or Ukrainian names. (E.g. Barabashka vs. Akademika Barabashova). That does not mean that these nicknames should be mentioned in encyclopedic articles.
• Russian names are more relevant to Russian Wikipedia unless there were russian plaques/announcements/schemas in the past. In the latter case, it is appropriate to use russian names in the historic context.

The I have to note also, that the source of Russian names on the site Kuban kazak provided is Russian mailing list http://groups.yahoo.com/group/metroo ; Peter, the author of that site, is a subscriber of that mailing list. Since that mailing list is in Russian he took names as they were mentioned in that list. Often, russian users participate in English mailing lists (e.g. urbairail at yahoogroups) and use Russian transliterated names. Google is not a reliable source to decide what is more common. To me Hillock65's proposition on #2 and #3 seems to be the most rational Therefore, the following is suggested:

1. Ukrainian names must be mentioned in the beginning of articles.

• Agree --Hillock65 20:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree (not in question) --TAG 22:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree --Kuban Cossack 16:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Article names should be based on Ukrainian transliterated names with a Russian transliterated redirect.

• Agree --Hillock65 20:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree --TAG 22:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Depends, in most cases yes, but only when there is no English version available --Kuban Cossack 16:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Russian name may be provided at the top for convenience if the Metro governing body provides it on its official website.

• Agree --Hillock65 20:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree (without exception on governing body) --TAG 22:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Partial agree: Why limit to official website? Any official body will do IMO. --Kuban Cossack 16:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Russian transliterated name may be provided at the top for convenience if the Metro governing body provides the Russian name it on its official website.

• Agree --Hillock65 20:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline (can introduce wrong transliterations) --TAG 22:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Same as point 4--Kuban Cossack 16:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a self reference? Solarapex 04:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Russian name may be provided in the historic section if the station/line was opened before December 1st, 1991 and the Metro governing body does not provide the Russian name on its official website.

• Agree --Hillock65 20:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree (but as second preference to the top) --TAG 22:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree per Tag. --Kuban Cossack 16:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Russian transliterated name may be provided in the historic section if the station/line was opened before December 1st, 1991 and the Metro governing body does not provide it on its official website.

• Agree --Hillock65 20:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree (only if pass Google test) --TAG 22:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline, lets not separate stations to pre-91 and post-91. --Kuban Cossack 16:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please express your opinion under each statement (Agree/Decline) and sign. Solarapex 18:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not to move Russian names of stations and lines to historical sections/paragraphs of the article instead of the first line? Just to mantion in the historical section that the article used to be know´n under its Russian name as well. In the same section all the issues concerning renaming of the stations, using Russfied Ukrainian names (like Zhovtnevaja) could be described. Is using Russian names in the first lines amatter of principle for some editors?--Mbuk 14:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support that. --Hillock65 14:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Is using Russian names in the first lines amatter of principle for some editors" I think you got it right there ;) G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 22:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this way the names will still be included and prospective readers gain benefit from knowing the current and past name usage. --Riurik^(discuss) 04:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read this as part of guiding myself further in a mediation I am leading, but was concerned that someone used the argument that using a government's opinion or policy was a violation of NPOV.

It isn't.

In general, Wikipedia gives authority to the official positions of legitimate governments in matters such as naming places, legal status of persons, and other such matters, regardless of controversies.

If a position of a government is controversial, the burden of proving this lies with the editors, who by reliably sourcing the controversy, and following all the rules on due weight and WP:NPOV can present it as part of the article under a "Naming controversy" or some similar heading.

In this case, I think the editors who feel the non-use of Russian names in the Ukraine is controversial, must prove that this is a notable and verifiable controversy, and then provide this information. Failure to do so makes their argument irrelevant and complete original research.

Inclusion of Russian names for places controlled by the Government of the Ukraine would be a clear violation of policy, regardless of the outcome of this mediation.--Cerejota 23:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cerejota, thanks for noticing this. If you can - could you get into more details in scope of my reply. I've cited both WP:NCGN and two government owned sources (and have a lot more like those news on president website, address of government organizations, city architecture council about planned ones, used in news and republished by SBU. IMHO, WP:NCGN apply here much better then more generic guidelines cited by you. --TAG 00:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The examples above only prove that the Government provides its websites in 3 languages. That is all. It has no bearing on naming conventions whatsoever, if it did, than the station names are to be translated into English as well, since it is the third language in these sources. The only verifiable source on the station names is the City of Kyiv metro administration and it is unequivocally uni-lingual Ukrainian only [21]. Station names in Russian exist only in imagination of some users, not in real life - neither in station, nor on streets, nor on plaques, nor in any other place on the planet! So, what are they doing in this article? --Hillock65 04:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read again. You has agreed that then article text is in Russian - then station name is used in Russian - so this is valuable for Wikipedia to include this widely used Russian name in order to make sure it will not be Червоная усадьба instead of Красный хутор. You base your opinion based on content of one lonely website there lazy webmaster has created /Ukr folder - but did not bother to create /Rus one, but I based my opinion on numerous examples of different websites, the way they appear in news and how local people people refer to stations. There are sources provided by me and others - with map of stations in Russian language as well their Russian names used on official website, as well somebody can mention s:Constitution of Ukraine#Article_10 (in part for free development, use and protection of Russian). If you wish to support your claim that Ukrainian is the only official name and there is no others - please add at least one more source (per WP:V) that clearly say so (in addition to lonely Kyiv metro administration website and your research that not listing Russian make it nonofficial here ). Thanks in advance. --TAG 07:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are entirely missing the point. If we use the names in Russian, we are violating WP:5P-level policies, the only policies not subject to WP:IAR. Period. If there is a controversy, outside of wikipedia, regarding the names, please source and verify it, and create a "Controversy" section in the article. Otherwise, only the official government names must be used and metioned. The use of the constitution by both sides of the POV is original research: only what sources say is publishable. My main concern here is mis-use of the WP:NPOV policy: government information outside of controversies is considered non-biased. This is why if there is a controversy, this controversy must be verifiable. This goes beyond WP:NCGN and into five pillar territory. If the editors insisting in using Russian names do not provide ample evidence of a controversy, they are setting themselves up to get kicked hard by ArbCom for disrupting wikipedia via soapboxing.--Cerejota 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cerejota that we should only use the original Ukrainian names, not the Russian names for the metro lines. Electionworld Talk? 06:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I visited Kiev I heard Russian spoken as often as in Moscow. I can't see a reason for discriminating against one of the languages of this bilingual city. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, let's get serious. It is not the matter of who speaks what, it is the matter of staying true to the source, per no WP:OR. There are just as many English speakers in Montreal and I don't see anyone pushing English language POV in articles on Montreal Metro in the officially biligual country. If the city of Kyiv went with Ukrainian only names maybe we should trust them who live and run the city first, and then those who visited it?--Hillock65 08:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, which is why the internet domain is .Kiev.ua (not the mutilated Kyiv) which is why the Kiev's city Municipality has a Russian version of its website and which is why the whole of Kiev is Russophone. No OR in any of those statements, in fact the usage of the term Kyiv is ORish IMO. --Kuban Cossack 16:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The irrelevance of multilingual sites to the issue of station names has been covered multiple times in this mediation. Inventing names which are not used anywhere in real life and inserting them here is indeed POV. Here is another prime example: Ploschad Nezavisimosti (Kiev Metro). This name does not exist on planet Earth! Not in Ukrainian capital, not in streets, not in stations, not on any plaque anywhere! It is an artificial creation like most of the Russian language additions to Kyiv Metro stations. Even the amateur Russian-language metro site which should have never been listed as a source (per WP:Verifiability) names it in Ukrainian! [22] If this is not the blatant WP:OR, I don't know what is. Metro stations are used for some to push Russian neo-imperialist POV, rather then remove politics from the articles and concentrate on the subject matter. Same primitive reasons and exuses for pushing this stuff keep being recycled over and over again. I will not be participating in the new round of beating around the same bush.--Hillock65 17:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IF personal attacks is all you are capable of doing, then I regret we will not be able to have a consensus. Speaking of the station's name all sites are different. And they are NOT amateurish, they have more information than the official site fyi.--Kuban Cossack 19:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ploschad Nezavisimosti is clear reason for listing most commonly used correct Russian name in article. --TAG 22:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you saw personal attack? It is a weak ploy to shift attention from the point of discussion. Speaking of the sources, yes all sources are different. So, which ones are you supposed to use? The ones that suit your point of view? (WP:NPOV). And I didn't call the sites amateurish, no they are not. They are sites done by amateurs, they are way beyond amateurish, they are done by people with as many POVs as you have. Read carefully here (WP:V), which sources are supposed to be used in an encyclopedia article and which aren't. I haven't found any mentioning of amateur websites in WP official policy, maybe you will. When you do, please let me know. --Hillock65 20:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making political conclusions such as Metro stations are used for some to push Russian neo-imperialist POV are personal attacks. How would you like this: Removing Russian from wikipedian articles is used to push Ukrainian nationalist POV, aid the Ukrainization policies and break WP:POINT? I gave sources, not just amateur websites, but official Ukrainian websited that use Russian versions. I do not understand why are continuing to competely unaccept having Russian in the lead of Ukrainian articles, considering that one of the initiators of the medcab has now resigned. Considering you never wrote a single line in those articles who do you think you are to tell people what to put and what to remove. I'd leave that to the administrators. --Kuban Cossack 21:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, you found me sentence about Russian imperialims an insult. I didn't mention you by name, it can hardly be my fault that you took it on your own account. I will not be discussing again which sources you used, it has been covered quite extensively here. As far as the Russian language in the lead, I'd like to reiterate one more time: it will belong there when the metro governing body lists it there. Kyiv metro stations are unilingually Ukrainian in overwhelming majority, you won't see a single sign, plaque or announcement in any language other than Ukrainian. I wonder, why unlike us, the French never have to deal with editors pushing English language names in the Montreal Metro in officially biligual country? Inserting Russian language names taken from your own imagination and from questionable amateur sources is distorting the reality, is POV and unacceptable. It violates multiple WP policies (read above). In regards to the articles, read WP:OWN, you don't own anything here, and every user, including me has the right to question your abuse of POV.--Hillock65 21:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say this, but I'm going skiing for two weeks as of Friday. You have two options; get a new mediator, or move up to medcom. I personally suggest #2, as I think a forceful resolution will be the quickest resolution, but you're all free to discuss it. I'm going to remove my name from the case now, and you can discuss the future from here. Sorry to do this to you, and thanks for your co-operation. Good luck in solving your dispute! G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 22:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, where do we go from here? Do we need to file for ArbCom or there are other options still available? Any suggestions on the course of action? This mediation has been going on for 10 days and here we are. What's next? --Hillock65 00:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to file for MedCom... Hopefully it will help and User:Kuban kazak will refrain from disruptive behavior. — Alex^(U|C|E) 01:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Request for mediation filed. This case is now closed. — Alex^(U|C|E) 02:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]