Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments1 person in discussion
You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
You also could have simply looked at the talk page instead of writing baseless claims like "it looks like it was added purposefully by someone to once again distort and rewrite history". Mellk (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I actually looked that’s why I removed it, the term “red Russia” was almost certainly never used to described red Ruthenia, while google Ngram shows that it’s used, it is misleading because of the fact that “After the 1917 October Revolution, Red Russia became a synonym for Soviet Russia in English” that is exactly what the citation pegged there to the term red Russia says, so it would be better off to just remove that term from the lede as it is quite deceiving, and without prior knowledge of the region people who red it for the first time may think that it has any relation to Russia. Scenic town (talk) 09:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I already provided examples of recent sources (published in the 21st century) that use "Red Russia" to refer to the region. This is a clear alternative name, so there is no good reason to remove this. Mellk (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
There is a reason, if you google red Russia, the first results that pop up are of communism, it even says so in the source that is provided for the term red Russia, just because it was used a few times by some historians doesn’t mean the term was actually standard, there are a lot of different alternative names that were used back then, there could be dozens and we could be unaware of them, every historian, every book, every old chronicle used different spellings and names because there was no standardization, there is no alternative name for New York just because it was once called “New Amsterdam” what matters is what is used more, “red Russia” was almost certainly not a standard name, and today it has changed its meaning, you can google it and see it for yourself, sometimes words and phrases change meanings, the word “silly” once meant “happy” now it means “foolish” the same case is with the wording “red Russia” maybe it could mean red Ruthenia in a very narrow context, but it certainly gained a new meaning, and keeping it makes no sense because it misleads people. Scenic town (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
We are talking about English-language books published in the 21st century, so terms found in foreign-language chronicles are irrelevant unless they are used in English-language literature. The article is also about a historic region, so the comparison with New York is not apt. Mellk (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, but there has to be a reason for adding a name or alias, if it’s mentioned in one English language source it doesn’t make it eligible, it’s the same as there has to be a certain amount or percent of speakers in a certain region to include a minority language as one of the varieties for spelling, at least 10%, because if the name “red Russia” is mentioned in one source against let’s say a hundred “red Ruthenia and red Rus” it just makes it redundant and more politically biased rather than something important to know, it literally provides more confusion than it does information, there has to be a reason for it to stay, you haven’t provided one except saying that it’s mentioned somewhere, I on the other hand have provided at least a few reasons why it should be removed.
I already mentioned that “red Russia” is used to describe “communist Russia” in English, that is why google ngram shows it as being a common name, in the Wikipedia page it even says “not to be confused with red Russia” and then it proceeds to be mentioned in the lede that it’s also called “red Russia” there has to be consistency, if something confuses people it means that it should at least be considered to be removed, there is even a mentioning in citation “Polish King's price for this assistance was the province of Red Russia, or, as it should more strictly be called, Red Ruthenia, which, however, did not long remain a part of Poland."[1] After the 1917 October Revolution, Red Russia became a synonym for Soviet Russia in English” implying that it is wrong and frowned upon to call it that way, I just can’t understand what purpose this name serves there, there’s been a lot of debates about names popularity here on Wikipedia and most of the time everyone came to terms that the most popular ones should be used. “Red Russia” is not only unpopular compared to the other two, it is more commonly used as a term to describe a completely different situation. Scenic town (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I provided two examples, not one, and this was after a quick search. These are quality sources as well. There are plenty of other sources, you can take a look at Google Books (this is particularly relevant for Jewish history), so you really cannot argue that this is a term that is almost never used to describe a region. Your arguments have also not really been policy-based; you have argued that it is "deceiving" or "misleading", but we are not here for righting great wrongs. The name "Russia" has historically been associated with the region, that is just how it is.
Your say that "Red Russia" has been associated with communism, but this is not really relevant here because this is not about the title of the article. The same name can have multiple meanings. See disambiguation. Even if this was about the title, it would simply be something like "Red Russia (region)" since the region would likely not be considered the primary topic.
Per WP:OTHERNAMES: All significant alternative titles, names, or forms of names that apply to a specific article should usually be made to redirect to that article. If they are ambiguous, it should be ensured that the article can at least be reached from a disambiguation page for the alternative term. The page is reached from the disambiguation page for "Red Russia".
If you want to make a convincing argument, then you need to prove that "Red Russia" has marginal usage when referring to the region (for example by showing that nearly all results in Google Scholar, Ngrams etc. do not refer to the region). Mellk (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don’t know how else I can prove that “red Russia” has marginal usage referring to the region rather than just saying that you can google and see it for yourself, when you type in “red Russia” and just that without adding any additional word, you cannot find anything that would at least look like it’s trying to refer to red Ruthenia, overwhelmingly all or most results are about communist Russia or just Russian history in general no matter what section you look at, wether it’s books, images, all, or news. Also WP:RSUW states that “ We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.” And also from the same policy “ Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.” Scenic town (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
You are referring to primary topic. We already have a disambiguation page for "Red Russia". There is no guideline that states that alternative names must primarily refer to the subject (otherwise that means that we cannot include the same alternative names on multiple articles even if they have multiple meanings). "Germany" is included an alternative name in the opening for German Empire even though most hits on Google refer to the modern state. Mellk (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Germany referring to German empire makes sense because it is literally just a shortened version of the whole name “German empire” whilst “red Russia” is a debatable term to use in that context, it provides no useful information, this is English language Wikipedia, and let’s face it, an average English speaker probably never even heard the most popular name for that area, which is “red Ruthenia” not to mention red Rus, so keeping red Russia there just wreaks havoc, it can lead to a lot of confusion among people because most of the time the only thing people read is the lede, it’s hard to notice the disambiguation page unless you’re looking for it,the only thing that comes to mind as to why it was rarely written as “Red Russia” is that it could be a limp literal translation from Latin, and I strongly believe that if something isn’t used frequently and creates confusion it should be removed Immediately, the best analogy I can provide is “poles” this word is decreasing in use because of its ambiguity and it’s better to say “polish people”. Sometimes red Ruthenia in English language was also referred to as “Russia rubra” this one is the literal translation I was talking about, it was also rarely referred to as “Chervona Rus”. But again as I already mentioned WP:RSUW states “Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.” It would be ridiculous if we included all the variations. Scenic town (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
You are not referring to policies. I also do not see what is the relevance of "Russia rubra" here if you are referring to historical sources used centuries ago, not recent secondary sources published in English. Mellk (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Well in the reference provided for “red Russia” there’s also a word that is written neither Kyiv nor Kiev, it says Kieff. it doesn’t mean that it’s correct, it just means that it was used by a small minority, back then centuries ago as you mentioned, there was no standardized spelling, every could write one word completely differently, but there sure was a majority! And the majority wrote it “red Ruthenia” it’s actually probably the only true spelling in English as it contains unique English sound “Th”, it should be removed or changed, because the way it is presented can create a lot of narratives for people who read only the lede, a lot of people don’t even open the whole page, they just read the excerpt from google knowledge panel, and then after reading go on about their day thinking that modern Russia and that region is the same thing, which is why it’s important to keep it neutral sticking with the most popular names. Scenic town (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I was not referring to this footnote (someone added this and it violates WP:NOR). I was referring to the following sources mentioned on the talk page:
The Polish–Lithuanian State, 1386–1795: "Some Ruthenian nobles lost their lands when Kazimierz III the Great of Poland took Galicia (Red Russia)" (p. 25)
The Jews of Eastern Europe, 1772–1881: "Western Galicia included territories from 'Little Poland,' most of whose inhabitants were Catholic Poles, while eastern Galicia took in territories of 'Red Russia,' whose population was Ukrainian and Greek Catholic" (p. 70).
But still even in those books where it is named that way most of the times it is referred to either in paranthesis, or some even explicitly mention it should more strictly be called, Red Ruthenia. Up until 1915 Kieff for example was more popular in English than Kyiv according to google ngram, but as we see today it is not mentioned as an alternative name, and fell out of use. Red Russia on the other hand was the third popular name, which even then was discouraged to use, and today as I said it creates more confusion, we have to take into consideration that google creates its Knowledge graphs from Wikipedia, and it takes information mostly from the lede, so leaving (red Russia) there is just very unnecessary, because as I already said modern speakers have no idea that “red Russia” means also “red Ruthenia” and if you think that red Russia is necessary there (which I disagree) I think we should at least relocate it from the lede to one of the sections or create another section that would be dedicated to names where it would explain which names are used and also which names not to confuse or misatributte to another nation that has virtually no connection to that land. Scenic town (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am not sure what is the relevance of the comparison with "Kieff" when we are talking about books published in the 21st century. Where in those books is it suggested that "Red Russia" is an incorrect name and that it should actually be "Red Ruthenia"? In the examples given it is clear it is used to refer a region in Galicia. Not to mention that "Ruthenia" and "Russia" are Latin names for the same word. Mellk (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I gave an example of Kieff to just show that not everything mentioned should be in the lede, because there was no standard spelling back then, people wrote what they heard or thought was correct, just because a source is older doesn’t mean it’s correct, even in 1700-1800 there was a lot of political bias and books could be written with prejudice and hubris, what we know for sure is that it was definitely referred to as red Ruthenia and red Rus, I also think that it is relevant to mention Kyivan Rus as an argument here because it’s the same root, now imagine how politically biased it would’ve looked if it said Kyivan Russia in the lede, and I think it goes without saying that it would quickly become a political game, where people would use it as a tool to assert dominance. That is why it is better to leave ambiguous names out of the lede. Scenic town (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Okay, but these books were published in the 21st century, not 1700 or 1800. We are using names that are currently used in the literature. Mellk (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
It doesn’t matter when it was published, because the spelling Kieff that I mentioned is published in the 20th century which is not very old, but it doesn’t mean it’s standard, so that is why we don’t see it almost anywhere on Wikipedia, maybe there’s no mentioning at all, and also you said something interesting “we are using names that are currently used in literature” that contradicts what you said before when you gave example of these books (The Polish–Lithuanian State, 1386–1795:
The Jews of Eastern Europe, 1772–1881) also saying that we are using names that are currently used in literature just proves my point, because nowadays there’s even more political bias, we can’t know for sure whether a name was used because it was actually used or the writer was just a biased person who wanted to share his point of view and not actual facts. Scenic town (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
We are talking about a 100-year difference, so yes, there is a dramatic change in what terms and names are used compared to now. In 1915, Ukraine was still known as "Little Russia".
I am not also not sure how the sources I mentioned contradict what I said about "names that are currently used in literature". Please explain carefully because so far you have only accused the authors of being biased simply because they used a term you do not approve of. Mellk (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I didn’t accuse authors, I just said that it could very well be biased, we don’t know, and the sources you mentioned contradict what you said because you mentioned books describing (1300-1800 years) I believe that’s not modern literature, and also on the talk page of red Ruthenia you said the following “If you simply search for "Red Russia", then it is clear that communism is the primary topic. Similar story with "White Russia" in regards to the White movement. Modern history is much more popular. But this does not mean it has not been used to refer to the region.” That is why I think there’s a bit of contradiction, because here you’re saying that we are writing according to modern literature spellings but on the talk page of red Ruthenia you said that this does not mean it has not been used to refer to the region, you see that is why I wrote Kieff as an example, because it was referred to the city sometime in the history, but it doesn’t make it eligible to be an alternative name, also “red Russia” is a very contentious-sounding compound, just like Kyivan Russia would spark a lot of trouble and wrongful attribution to one state. During every era words were spelled a little differently e.g. England/Ingland/Engla lond, but it would be ridiculous to write every name and spelling each generation referred to a certain region. And that is why I think red Russia should be removed because not only does it cause confusion it also is a very contentious word compound. Scenic town (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have said repeatedly that those books were published in the 21st century. They are referring to the medieval period or imperial era because the subject is a historical region. This is a term that fell out of use, like "left-bank Ukraine" or "right-bank Ukraine" and hence is primarily used in a historical context. I am sorry but I do not think your reading comprehension is at an acceptable level (see WP:CIR). Mellk (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
How in the world does it matter when a book was published? Everyone can write a book right now and state that something is correct to use, you can modify books however you want, people have and always had their point of view, some could have intentionally written as “red Russia” because they are from Russia or just admire their culture so they wanted to sparkle a bit of bias in there, it could’ve even been written by a Russian for that matter, what we know for sure is that it was referred to as red Ruthenia and red Rus, second guessing about another names is really not something we should do, what matters is not how red Russia was used back then, u said it yourself that we’re using those variations that are popular in contemporary literature, red Russia is not only unpopular to mean red Ruthenia in modern literature, it is used to refer to a completely different topic that has no relation to red Ruthenia whatsoever. Scenic town (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
We have a policy against using self-published sources. The two books in question were published by University of Washington Press and University of Pennsylvania Press. Do you really want to suggest that this is some kind of Russian conspiracy? Why make baseless claims like these and the ethnicity of the authors is irrelevant (no, they are not Russian). You are also still confused about what primary topic means. Mellk (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Im not saying it’s any conspiracy, i’m just stating a fact that it could be influenced by Russia language sources, even the most trusted sources can be wrong sometimes, in the both press universities you mentioned, it isn’t a single person working, there are dozens, maybe hundreds, and yes influence from bigger countries is strong, it just shows about Chernobyl/Chornobyl, is any of these spellings true English? No, it’s not that hard to understand that it was influenced by Russian spelling instead of the native Ukrainian one. There was always this inconsistency, even with Kyiv/Kiev, the name allegedly derived from one of the founders named Kyi, but for some reason for a long time the name in English was preferred Kiev, it made no sense but it was that way because of the Russian influence. And if I’m not mistaken Wikipedia should avoid writing in a controversial way that would favor one side or another, red Russia definitely creates a lot of confusion and makes people draw wrong conclusions that red Ruthenia may be related to modern Russia in one way or another, when in reality red Ruthenia is not even solely Ukraine or Poland, it’s just specific to certain regions of those both countries. There are still people in parts of Ukraine and Poland that call themselves ruthenians, and it is clearly a preferred name. Scenic town (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
You were just told that the consensus is to not change Kiev to Kyiv in historical contexts. If this continues I will report you to the administrators. Mellk (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I should also note the removal of Russian-language names despite there being no consensus to do this. @Ymblanter: Do these edits look justified? Mellk (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I’m not changing clearly historical medieval articles to Kyiv, there’s no rule on Wikipedia that would clearly draw a line where to use Kyiv and Kiev, all is says is “use Kyiv in modern context and Kiev in historical” how is Ukraine people’s republic not a modern context? Also there doesn’t have to be consensus to make small edits, I never tried to make disruptive edits on purpose, I’m changing it accordingly to other articles, for example there is no need for Russian spelling at Konotop page because it is the exact same spelling as in Ukrainian Конотоп/Конотоп, not even a single letter is different in that exact word. Scenic town (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
But there are a lot of exceptions, for example Battle of Chornobyl took place in 1920, but it clearly uses modern spelling, it was moved from “battle of Czarbonyl”, and there was a consensus, that is why I thought that this would logically apply to Ukraine People’s republic to use the spelling Kyiv. Scenic town (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
This Scenic town guy is already so disruptive everywhere, I think we don't need to take long before we decide that it has been enough. NLeeuw (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
May I know where exactly im Disruptive? Because that’s accusation and not a fact provided, I stopped editing contentious topics after warnings, so I would appreciate if you could pin point what you think I’m doing wrong. Scenic town (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I stopped editing contentious topics after warnings. – Not quite. @Mellk and Ymblanter: The user later tried to move "Strwiąż". Look at "Talk:Strwiąż#Retitling", I'm suggesting that he makes a formal move request and invites all the parties that might be interested. But he continues to insist that the move is uncontroversial and seems to think that I should just let him do it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I moved that page about a month ago, maybe less, after that I didn’t move any pages, and it wasn’t a contentious topic, by the way, until you made it look that way, why are you even bringing it up? I guess I clearly stated yesterday that I don’t want to involve myself in this conversation anymore, as you can see I didn’t move this page because I understand that there’s no point in even trying to do so. But it looks like you’re bored and just trying to continue this conversation for the sake of just arguing. Scenic town (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I understand that there’s no point in even trying to do so. – But why "no point"? I would have filed a formal request myself cause I want to see what happens, but I don't know where the page can or should be moved. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
There’s no point to do it from my side because I know that it’s gonna be opposed, I provided enough sources that suggest the common name is “Strviazh” in English language media, there was no need to make a big scene out of that, because it’s not a contentious topic, it’s just that you’re denying actual facts of that spelling I provided yesterday, just because it doesn’t look as pretty as “Strwiąż” if that’s what you base every title off “prettiness” then I really don’t have anything else to tell you, if you want to request the move, do it, but I’m no longer interested in doing so or continue this conversation, considering the fact that you actually don’t need a consensus on topics that aren’t contentious if you provide evidence ( and I proved facts of that spelling I moved it to) you still reverted it because you didn’t like my suggestion on Principality of Galicia not because the move wasn’t constructive. I just wanna say, I am no longer interested in wasting my time on trying to prove my move that was almost a month ago, because after providing you facts, you’re still trying to pretend it’s not true, consider this conversation over. Scenic town (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 21 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for your contributions to Khyriv railway station. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and sources should b reliable and independent with significant coverage of the subject.
I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Latest comment: 20 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Draft declinedThank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.
FeedbackThe reviewer, ChrysGalley, left the following feedback:
This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:
provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, not just brief mentions or routine announcements;
are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
are independent: not connected to the subject, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.
Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.
There is only one source here that gets over the "significant coverage" hurdle, Forgotten Galicia, and we need multiple. The other sources are short and/or incidental to the station - e.g. the focus on reopening train services which pass through the station, but that's not giving much about the station. So some more delving is needed here.
Hello, Scenic town!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ChrysGalley (talk) 09:45, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 20 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Khyriv railway station, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation if you prefer.
Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
@Mariamnei: hi, thanks for your feedback, but I believe I already provided enough notable sources, can you pinpoint exactly what’s still missing? How many more need to be added or which ones specifically. Scenic town (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I looked at it again. I think it marginally meets notability, so I have removed the template. If possible, please expand it further. Thanks and have a wonderful day! Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️11:34, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
↑Cite error: The named reference u185 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Red Ruthenia, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kiev Arsenal January Uprising. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
