Wikipedia

Talk:Kiev offensive (1920)

(Redirected from Talk:Kiev Offensive (1920))
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Paine Ellsworth in topic Requested move 5 July 2023
Learn more about this page
Former good articleKiev offensive (1920) was one of the Warfare good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 20, 2006Good article nomineeListed
November 13, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
October 5, 2012Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 7, 2005, May 7, 2006, May 7, 2010, May 7, 2012, and May 7, 2016.
Current status: Delisted good article

Petliura

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What does make Petliura to be nominated as a nationalist? The fact that he tried to reorganize the Ukrainian military by introducing the Ukrainian language cannot classify him as the nationalist or does it? Does promotion of the Ukrainian culture can classify one as a nationalist? Not necessarily. And finally, can the Soviet history's nomination of him as a nationalist be classified by the Encyclopedia Britannica (which already was called racial on several occasions) as one? Yes, why not. In fact there are no supporting evidence that clearly identify him as the nationalist. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Reliable sources. In this case, it's Peter Abbot's "Ukrainian Armies 1914-55", page 17. More can be added, if you wish. Britannica is preferable in this case as it is a tertiary source, that is, an aggregation of secondary ones. --Illythr (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic military

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why is UkrSSR military involvement included here? First of all it was artificial country, second of all it did not have its military. Its military was headed by the Russian narkom Antonov-Ovseyenko who was assisted by the crazy Dybenko (supposedly Ukrainian, but he was born in the Russian-speaking uyezd of the Chernigov Governorate). The Red Cossack Division that participated in the Russian Civil war on the territory of Ukraine was recruited in the Don region. And the government of Ukraine consisted out of the Russian political party. There was not a single Ukrainian on that so called Soviet Ukrainian forces. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Because reliable sources say so. Specifically, the armistice was signed between the Poland, RSFSR and UkrSSR, marking them as participants in the war. --Illythr (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Polish-Soviet war

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please read the article, as well as this one and consult sources. --Illythr (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Currently not GA class

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am seeing numerous unreferenced claims in the article. I do not believe it is up to the current GA class. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 15:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

GA Reassessment

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Kiev Offensive (1920)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I am afraid this article contains a large number of unreferenced claims, making it no longer up to modern GA standards. I've marked them with citation needed tags. Further, notes should be clearly separated from references. At least one ibid is used (those are not to be used on Wikipedia). Several book cites need page number cites. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

No action from anyone, I am afraid I have no recourse but to fail this one. I'll go on and delist this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

B-class review: failed

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sadly, after failing the GA review above, I also have to quickfail the B-class review due to outstanding citation needed tags. Article downgraded to C class. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Kiev Offensive (1920). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kiev Offensive (1920). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

"Kyiv Offensive" listed at Redirects for discussion

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Kyiv Offensive and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 26#Kyiv Offensive until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 27 February 2022

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago14 comments9 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. This is part of a three-way close of

I will be copy-pasting the same close rationale to all three.

The key question here is whether "Kyiv" vs. "Kiev" is sufficient disambiguation on its own under WP:SMALLDETAILS. At the Kiev Offensive RM, Mhawk10 and Mlb96 make the case that they are, but at the Kyiv offensive RM, no one seems to contest CentreLeftRight and HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith's argument that the distinction is obscure to most users and that the transliteration "Kiev" remains in widespread use; Walrasiad and Eduardog3000 make similar points at the Kiev Offensive RM. Thus I find consensus that Kiev/Kyiv is insufficient disambigation on its own.

The outcomes of these three discussions follow easily enough from this:

  • BilledMammal's DAB page at Kyiv offensive is restored and Kyiv Offensive is retargeted to it.
  • Kyiv offensive (2022) is not moved.
  • Kiev Offensive is moved to Kiev Offensive (1920).
  • There was no discussion of what to do with the resulting redirect at Kiev Offensive, but since the consensus to move was based on the premise that the term is ambiguous, I will retarget it to the DAB at Kyiv offensive, without prejudice against an RfD to review that decision.

There may appear to be an inconsistency in capitalization here, but it represents the consensuses at both RMs, and to me appears justified based on the fact that one is a descriptive title and one a proper name. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Kiev Offensive → Kiev Offensive (1920) – Between this article and Kyiv offensive (2022) there is no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and neither Kiev/Kyiv nor offensive/Offensive are sufficient to differentiate between the two. BilledMammal (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • Support per nom. Kiev / Kyiv spelling is irrelevant. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. This is the primary topic for the term "Kiev Offensive". The two offensives can be well-distinguished by the spelling of the city's name. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose The policy at WP:SMALLDETAILS specifies that Kiev/Kyiv actually is sufficient to distinguish the two articles. Neither article should have a disambiguator. Mlb96 (talk) 07:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • In this case it isn't, because "Kiev" and "Kyiv" are names for the same place used at the same time; one is a transliteration of the Russian name, the other the transliteration of the Ukrainian name - see Kyiv#Etymology. This can be seen in how sources refer to the offensives; while most use "Kiev" for the 1920 offensive, and most use "Kyiv" for the 2022 offensive, some use "Kyiv" for the former, and some use "Kiev" for the latter. BilledMammal (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
      • Are you asserting that there is so much overlap that neither event is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for either spelling? That sounds implausible. In fact, a simple google search for both terms demonstrates that your assertion is wrong and that sources are fairly consistent in their spellings of each event: Kiev for 1920, Kyiv for 2022. The sources do not need to be 100% unanimous, there just needs to be enough consistency that we can confidently say what the primary topic is. And the evidence is fairly damning in this case. Mlb96 (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
        • I'm saying there can't be a primary topic between them, because the names are functionally the same; they are both current names for the same the city, though one is preferred for good reason. See these Google trends results; while "Kyiv" is more common, the popularity of "Kiev" demonstrates the issues. BilledMammal (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
          • We don't base titles off of what people search for on Google, we base them off of what reliable sources use. Do you have any evidence to suggest that the Kiev Offensive has ever been widely referred to in reliable sources with the spelling Kyiv? Even if I attempt to find examples by googling "1920 kyiv offensive," all the results use Kiev. And the proportion of reliable sources which use the spelling Kiev in reference to the current conflict is negligible, if any even exist at all (I could only find unreliable sources using that spelling). You're getting hung up on the fact that they're different names for the same city, but that is irrelevant for purposes of WP:SMALLDETAILS. The only things that matter for that policy are that a) they are spelled differently, and b) there is a different primary topic for each spelling. Mlb96 (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. Not everyone is necessarily aware of Wikipedia's naming norms. This is helpful to readers. Walrasiad (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Kiev offensive is the more commonly used name in sources.XavierGreen (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
@XavierGreen: It is not the name that is at issue. It is merely whether the date (1920) should be added for disambiguation. Walrasiad (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Weak support. Tough call. Obviously, now, everyone is talking about the 1922 events, but in the long run, will historiography recognize this as an new Kiev offensive, and will this term endure and require equal treatment? I am torn what is the best thing do do now, but in the end I think both 1920 and 2022 events need () and the variants of the KO term should be a disambig or redirect to one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
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.

Requested move 5 July 2023

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago24 comments9 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kiev Offensive (1920) → Kiev offensive (1920) – Not a clear proper name, unlike Iraq War. 90.255.6.219 (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 03:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Move to Kyiv offensive (1920). This is the most WP:COMMONNAME in current sources.
According to Google Book Search in English-language sources from 2020 on:
Google Scholar, from 2020 on:
There was a decision to allow the use of Kiev in “historical subjects” that’s mentioned in WP:KYIV. It should be overridden in this instance, because it has no rationale as a basis to override the usage in Ukrainian historical subjects. This is the descriptive title of an offensive in Ukraine, and most sources on the history of Ukraine now use the spelling Kyiv.
For example, the following sources on Ukrainian history use Kyiv:
  • Thomas M. Prymak (2021), Ukraine, the Middle East, and the West, Montreal & Kingston: McGill–Queen’s University Press.
  • Serhii Plokhy (2021), The Frontline: Essays on Ukraine’s Past and Present, Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute.
  • Serhy Yekelchyk (2020 [2015]), Ukraine: What Everyone Needs to Know, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press.
  • Serhii Plokhy (2018), Chernobyl: The History of a Nuclear Catastrophe, New York: Basic Books.
  • Anne Applebaum (2017), Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine, Penguin Random House.
  • Serhii Plokhy (2015), The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine, New York: Basic Books.
  • Myroslav Shkandrij (2009), Jews in Ukrainian Literature: Representation and Identity. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Georgiy Kasianov and Philipp Ther, eds. (2009), A Laboratory of Transnational History: Ukraine and Recent Ukrainian Historiography, Budapest: Central European University Press.
  • Serhii Plokhy (2008), Ukraine and Russia: Representations of the Past, University of Toronto Press.
  • Serhy Yekelchyk (2007), Ukraine: Birth of a Modern Nation, Oxford University Press.
  • Omer Bartov (2007), Erased: Vanishing Traces of Jewish Galicia in Present-Day Ukraine, Princeton University Press.
  • Andrew Wilson (2022 [2000]), The Ukrainians: The Story of How a People Became a Nation, 5th ed., Yale University Press. [new chapters for the the 5th edition use Kyiv]
  • Henry Abramson (1999), A Prayer for the Government: Ukrainians and Jews in Revolutionary Times, 1917–1920, Harvard University Press.
  • Andreas Kappeler, Zenon E. Kohut, Frank E. Sysyn, and Mark von Hagen eds. (2003), Culture, Nation, and Identity: The Ukrainian–Russian Encounter (1600–1945), Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press.
  • Myroslav Shkandrij (2001), Russia and Ukraine: Literature and the Discourse of Empire from Napoleonic to Postcolonial Times, Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Use of the spelling following the main article Kyiv is also supported by WP:CONSUB, and there’s no rationale to oppose it.
 —Michael Z. 19:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
There was a decision to allow the use of Kiev in “historical subjects” that’s mentioned in WP:KYIV. It should be overridden in this instance, because it has no rationale as a basis to override the usage in Ukrainian historical subjects - what a nice example of gaming the system. Summer talk 18:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it is, isn’t it?
About 80 editors debated the move Kiev → Kyiv over two and a half months resulting in a thoughtfully explained decision on the consensus.[1]
Then about 30 editors WP:VOTEed on a proposal to undo it for the vast majority of history, with no rationale, and a decision simply repeated the proposal with no rationale.[2]
Gaming the system is a valid summary.  —Michael Z. 19:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't see any substantial difference between both versions. Marcelus (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Capitalization.  —Michael Z. 19:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose this. There is no reason to limit sources for the title to 2020 or later and no reason to treat this is as an especially "Ukrainian" historical topic just because it took place in Ukraine. Hence no reason to limit ourselves to sources with Ukraine in the title or to override WP:KYIV. Srnec (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Remember when we renamed “Kyiv”? It had far less relative usage then than Kyiv offensive has now. There is no reason to prefer the Russian spelling. WP:KYIV does not supersede WP:COMMONNAME. I am not limiting anything to sources with Ukraine in the title.
2019–today, Google Books
2019–today, Google Scholar
no reason to treat this is as an especially "Ukrainian" historical topic just because it took place in Ukraine – what absolute, insulting nonsense.  —Michael Z. 22:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Why is it more Ukrainian (especially "Ukrainian") than Polish or Soviet? Your process completely excludes consideration of a source like White Eagle, Red Star: The Polish–Soviet War 1919–20. The only pre-2019 sources you have considered are all sources on Ukrainian history. The dates are arbitrary and ... why would we be consulting Plokhy's Chernobyl for this? Srnec (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
It was in Ukraine, so it’s a Ukrainian subject. I can’t believe I have to write this. It wasn’t in the Soviet Union. If it was in Poland, why aren’t you advocating Kijów offensive (1920)? (I don’t know why you’re quoting yourself: “especially ‘Ukrainian.’”)
Plokhy’s book is an example of a source on Ukrainian history. Why are you bringing up a 1972 book? We didn’t rename the main article Kyiv based on 1972 books.  —Michael Z. 03:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I didn't say it wasn't a Ukrainian subject. Do you think the Battle of the Bulge is not an American or German subject because it took place in Belgium? I'm sure it is found in Belgian history books, but they are not the go-to source. I quoted myself in the vain hope that you would realize that the word "especially" is there to indicate that it (the offensive) is a Ukrainian topic, just not more so than a Polish or Soviet one.
A book on Chernobyl is irrelevant (i.e., not RS) in an article on the Kiev offensive of 1920, but a 1972 book about the war is very much relevant. The renaming of the main article is irrelevant here per WP:KYIV. Srnec (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Here’s a more subject-focussed search:, restricted to English-language books since 2000:
The spelling Kyiv occurs in 49% of all results. This is much higher than the usage of Kyiv when we moved that article, and certainly that decision’s[3] finding that there is not only a single commonly used name applies. This gives us no reason to violate COMMONNAME and CONSUB.  —Michael Z. 14:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Capitalization isn't a substantial difference, it nothing more than a stylistic choice. Marcelus (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
That’s completely incorrect. E.g., MOS:TITLECAPS, MOS:MILTERMS.  —Michael Z. 22:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
So as you can see, it's purely stylistic choice Marcelus (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
As one sees, It’s not a stylistic choice. The style is mandated to reflect the meaning and therefore the difference is substantial.  —Michael Z. 21:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Weak support move to lower case "Kiev offensive", Oppose move to "Kyiv offensive". There is no reason to break the consensus on Kiev/Kyiv usage in this case. It should remain at "Kiev offensive (1920)". Ambivalent on whether "offensive" should be capitalized. Walrasiad (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose Mzajac's proposal since it's just POV-pushing, Support anon's proposal per WP:SENTENCECASE. Summer talk 18:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
It is not POV pushing. I have cited guidelines and provided evidence that the proposal satisfies them. If anything, you seem to be resuming the personal attacks you were previously blocked for by accusing me of bad faith without any rationale of your own, since your comments here are about me personally and not about the topic.  —Michael Z. 16:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
1) I would gladly ask you to retract your baseless accusations of personal attacks. 2) For unambiguously historical topics, do not change existing content. If you are not satisfied with a policy — that's your problem, not mine. Summer talk 11:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Kyiv. Neutral on capitalisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Kyiv – maybe we will have sitewide consensus on changing "Kiev" to "Kyiv" in historical articles, but the current consensus is not to do so. (I understand why Mzajac (Michael) disagrees with this, but I don't think changing pages on an ad hoc basis is the way forward). Support lowercase per reasoning given by OP. – GnocchiFan (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Every specific decision on Wikipedia is specific (what you call “an ad hoc basis”). To underline it, the “historical articles” decision makes it explicit: “For any edge cases, or in case of doubt or dispute, an RfC or move request debate is recommended / In all cases, name changes must follow the WP:BRD cycle.” Saying we can’t decide on this one because we can’t decide on this one is incorrect.  —Michael Z. 17:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
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.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kiev_offensive_(1920)&oldid=1211388851"