Talk:Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

List of Soviet republics in the bottom

Dear moderators,

There is a mistake in the list of Soviet republics in the bottom of the article, it has the flag of the Moldavian SSR near the link to the article about the Kirghiz SSR. Could someone please correct this mistake? Bektour 11:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for reporting it. Valentinian T / C 11:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (Kyrgyz or Kirghiz)

The way I recall things, 'Kirghiz' was the transliteration used during Soviet times, and 'Kyrgyz' was adopted later. If so, it should be moved to Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic. Any info on this? --Soman (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the CIA map (linked on Soviet Union, it was indeed Kirghiz. --Golbez (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested a move, so that the naming reflects the actual usage during soviet times. --Soman (talk) 07:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I think Golbez has a point; We shouldn't change the initials of just one of the satellite states, we should consider them all (and probably the

Russian SFSR as well). A quick look at Category:Soviet Republics shows that the initials SSR are used for all fourteen satellite states. That's not to say they need to be the same, there may be reasons for some going one way and some another. But in the absence of such reasons, they should all be treated in the same way. Andrewa (talk) 10:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Actually, 'satellite state' would refer to Poland or Hungary at the time, the SSRs were integral parts of the USSR. The 'SSR' vs. 'Soviet Socialist Republic' is a separate issue that Kyrgyz/Kirghiz, I do of course agree that any move would have to involve all of the SSRs and ASSRs. Generally, I think full names are better than abbreviations. --Soman (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken regarding terminology, satellite state is of course used to refer to Warsaw Pact countries as you say. But is there a better term to distinguish the fourteen SSRs from the one SFSR, and from the various ASSRs which were parts of the RSFSR?
Agree that abbreviations are normally better expanded. I wonder why these weren't? Andrewa (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(a tad off-topic but) there has been extensive academic debate on whether the Russians were the dominant nationality in the USSR, and if so what is meant by that. Some writers stressed that the periphery SSRs were colonies or like colonies under Russia, or that Russian excerted imperialism on the smaller nationalities. Whilst such discussions are very interesting in themselves, I think its best in wikipedia to primarily focus on the formal criteria. All SSRs (including the Russian and Transcaucasian SFSRs) had equal status in the Soviet administration. --Soman (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep in mind that if this is moved, many articles will also have to be moved - like the flag of the SSR, etc. --Golbez (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. But perhaps this is a good thing. Andrewa (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

name 2007

So why was this moved to Kirgiz, instead of Kirghiz, which was what the RM was for? --Golbez (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why this move to the wrong place? If anyone is looking under "Kirgiz", a redirect there will serve the purpose of getting to "Kirghiz".Cosal (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't panic. While checking google, I came across this page, which says that this term is rejected with source UNESCO. I see no problem in moving to "Kirghiz" if you say I got something wrong. `'Míkka>t 18:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But all of the former SSR names are 'rejected' at that site, probably because they are obsolete. Considering it comes up with the list of other SSRs, I would say that source validates using "Kirghiz". --Golbez (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article editing

There are certain users who have been editing other SSR articles on Wikipedia for the past year, by stating that the soviet republics existed until the adoption of their new constitutions in the mid-1990s.

Kirghiz SSR declared itself independent and changed its name to the

People's Republic of Hungary ended in 1989, but an all-new constitution was first made in 2011. Should we also say that the PR of Hungary existed until 2011, then? That would make little sense. Although Kyrgyzstan did not adopt a new constitution before 1993, there's no doubt about that it was a totally different state. It had a totally different form of government, its name was changed, it was an independent state (not a federated state), it was not a Soviet socialist republic. These factors are a lot more independent than the adoption of an all-new constitution. And although the constitution was not all-new, and formally the same constitution although heavily amended, it was amended to fit a new state and was not really the same constitution in practice. You'll have to agree that the 1991 transition is a lot more historically significant change in Kyrgyzstan's history than the adoption of a new constitution. A.h. king • Talk to me! 09:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

@A.h. king:, I am actually fine with your edit, I just saw that you removed quite a bit of text and you summary stated you reverted some edit-warring whereas there was no edit-warring in the article, and I assume it was a mistake. If it is not a mistake, please feel free to restore (may be with a different edit summary).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

name 2022

@Adakiko Hello. Explain why you canceled my edit. Do you have any arguments? I have - authoritative sources. Bosogo (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@
wp:COMMONNAME. Googling "Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic" returns about 15,400, "Kyrgyz Soviet Socialist Republic" returns about 4,730 results. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Please list your
wp:RS? Thank you Adakiko (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@Adakiko You wrote: "Googling "Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic" returns about 15,400, "Kyrgyz Soviet Socialist Republic" returns about 4,730 results."
But I see something else: 3 530 000 results for Kyrgyz Soviet Socialist Republic and 53 000 results for Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic.
Also look at the results of "Google Sholar":
for Kyrgyz Soviet Socialist Republuc - 22,200 results
for Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic - 6080 results
Your numbers are not correct. You didn't even provide a link. This is not the end of my arguments. If you do not reply within a reasonable time. I will be forced to undo your edits. Bosogo (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know perfectly well what "reliable sources" means and by what principles articles are named. I have been on Wikipedia since 2018)) enwiki is not my main place of contribution. Bosogo (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Try searching with the words enclosed in double quotes. Without them returns a mess. Adakiko (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Adakiko You do not take into account that the search results are given by blogs, sales sites, and so on. When naming the subject, they were guided by the spelling in Wikipedia, which always bore this name of the article (I can write about the reasons). But we should not be guided by Wikipedia's influence on non-academic sources. And take academic sources as a basis. Because they were not initially subject to the subjectivism of some Wikipedia authors. I live in the post-Soviet space. And this is a very difficult question of terms. When this article was created in the early 2000s. In those years, the population of Kyrgyzstan did not even know what Wikipedia was and now they vaguely imagine. Also in 2004, there was very little Internet coverage in Kyrgyzstan, even today Internet coverage is provided by the mobile network. The Union collapsed already as 14 years. During this time, the English-speaking world did not even realize what the Soviet Union was, its federal structure, etc. Everyone had a stereotype that the Soviet Union is Russian. Look who has made significant contributions to this article. It was Russian (based on the surname), for 2008 with a high degree of probability from Russia. Even in the text of the article, he uses the term "Kirghizia", ​​which is not standardized for English, instead of "Kyrgyzstan". Naturally, for 20 years this topic was covered from the point of view of Russians. And during this time (20 years), people looked at the name on Wikipedia, and did not read academic literature. This is the influence of Wikipedia. Therefore, the popularity of the term is incorrect to determine the results of Google.
The Russian language is not limited to Russia as English is to the United Kingdom. You approach the issue superficially and don't even notice that the Russians, who dominate the Wikimedia projects in Russian, were also actively involved in writing about the post-Soviet space in English. Therefore, the articles use "Kirghizia" (Kиргизия) to refer to Kyrgyzstan. The term Kyrgyzstan is equivalent to the term Russia. "Kirghizia" does not refer to Soviet Kyrgyzstan. Just like Russia, this is the name of a country, not a political regime (Russian empire, Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic). It's just that those who previously wrote this article use the name of Kyrgyzstan adopted in Russia - Kirghizia. And they copied the same name for an article about Soviet Kyrgyzstan (1924-1991).
Kyrgyz SSR 1936-1991). Even translating this text from Russian into English for the term "Кыргызская ССР", Google translator gives: "Kyrgyz SSR". Bosogo (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant issue is what is the
WP:PCM. I am done here. Adakiko (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Requested move 22 August 2022

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: not moved. There was a consensus to prefer the spelling that was used during the SSR's existence, which was demonstrated to be "Kirghiz". (non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic → Kyrgyz Soviet Socialist Republic –
1. Google Sholar (articles):
for Kyrgyz Soviet Socialist Republuc - 346 results
for Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic - 179 results
1.1 Google Sholar (case law):
for Kyrgyz Soviet Socialist Republuc - 1 results
for Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic - 0 results
2. Goole News:
for Kyrgyz SSR - 24 results
for Kirghiz SSR - 3 results
3. Google Trands:
Kyrgyz and Kirghiz
Kyrgyzstan and Kirghizia
Soviet Kyrgyzstan and Soviet Kirghizia
Kyrgyz Soviet Socialist Republic and Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic
Kyrgyz SSR and Kirghiz SSR
4. Google Books Ngram Viewer:
Kyrgyz Soviet Socialist Republic and Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic
Kyrgyz SSR and Kirghiz SSR
Also additionally I described in another section. Bosogo (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • support per nom—blindlynx 13:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the above topic shows that the nominator, who has 30 edits on Wikipedia, just does not understand the policies. Their opponent sounds more convincing for me. Ymblanter (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ymblanter You should familiarize yourself with Civility. And most likely it is you who do not understand how Wikipedia works. Specific arguments and counterarguments supported by reliable sources work here. You are getting personal. Administrator status does not give you the right to behave like this.
    P.S. Wikipedia is not limited to enwiki Bosogo (talk) 07:15, 23 August 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.

@AjaxSmack @Soman I see otherwise: 1) You didn't understand what we're looking for. 2) you did not mention me properly and closed the discussion on the same day, and not giving, as is usually the case, at least a few days for a response. In addition, why does the participant in the dispute sum up?

    • "Applying 'Kyrgyz' retroactively creates a neologism" The question was whether the word "Kyrgyz" is a neologism.

You yourself cited the fact that already in the 19th century the term "Kyrgyz" was used in the text. I didn't argue about popularity until the 90s. Here the question is whether this word is a neologism. As we saw -NO Look at. - you can see that the term "Kyrgyz" was used in different periods. You didn't bother to comment on this.

The above applies ONLY TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE TERM "KYRGYZ" IS A NEOLOGISM.

Finding out that this is not a neologism. Do you have any arguments against renaming ? Over the past 30 years, we see that the recognition of the term has changed. And the term itself didn't come out of thin air 30 years ago. It has been in use for many years at various times.--Bosogo (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you tried to prove to me that the term "Kirgiz SSR" was used and is being used. I do not deny. But you don't even read what I write. Here is a quote: Look, the term "Kyrgyz" has been fixed since the 19th century. Therefore, this a priori cannot be a neologism. It was about increasing the frequency of the use of this term in the mid-80s-90s. But the term itself has been in use for over 100 years. So your statement is wrong.
Do you see what I am talking about and what you are answering me about? I was responding to a remark about neologism. And we also found out with your help that this is not the case.
YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE OTHER ARGUMENTS IN OTHER SECTIONS. And I do not recognize the closure of the discussion. There is a conflict of interest here. If you do not answer, I will be forced to educate the community on this problem. Bosogo (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Bosogo, the discussion was closed by ModernDayTrilobite on August 30, four days after the last comment. Whilst you presented a long list of documents you grossly misrepresented your sources, as AjaxSmack and I pointed to regarding a select number of sources. The key detail here is that USSR systematically referred to this entity as 'Kirghiz SSR' (with slight variations in spelling) based on the Russian name (an exonym). This was, at the time, an established practice. --Soman (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Soman I don't understand your arguments. Do we refer to Byzantium as the Roman Empire on Wikipedia? Second. In the USSR, I recall there were other languages ​​besides Russian. And also I will remind you if you forgot that in the USSR in the Kyrgyz language they systematically used "Kyrgyz SSR". I can even cite a Soviet photograph from Frunze, where "Soviettik Kyrgyzstan" is written on the building.
You should not ignore arguments and go around in circles. I'm telling you about one thing - neologism or no. And you answer me that in Russian in the USSR it was different. AND ? I didn't deny it anyway. It's about the naming of the article, and not about the fact that there were no cars before, so let's delete articles about cars. Bosogo (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
about closing the discussion: sorry, due to the fact that I am arguing and in a hurry I did not look who summed up. I take back my words. I can't discuss every day so there may be breaks.--Bosogo (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph

I'm reluctant to make any edits as it appears the various names of the topic in question appears to have been a source of controversy, however the opening paragraph of this article really needs redoing. Currently, the whole paragraph consists of about eight different alternative names, with half of them written out in Kyrgyz, in Russian, and romanised in both languages, all before the article even gets to telling us what the Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic even is. Surely a lot of this could be put into notes, as at the moment it's pretty messy for the general reader to try and decipher. A wild wild world (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kirghiz_Soviet_Socialist_Republic&oldid=1207990268"