Talk:Kyiv/naming/Archive 6

message: Hi! Do we realy need writing and pronounciation of Kyiv in Russian at the begining of the article - "Russian: Ки́ев, Kiyev"? It's not official language neither in Ukraine nor in Kyiv city. --Oleksandr, 22 July 2006
:We do this for many Ukrainian cities. Some even list the city's name in Polish, German, Hungarian, or Hebrew. That way people can scan the header to see if the article is about the city they are thinking about, no matter what the current name is.--tufkaa 14:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Russian spelling and pronunciation, as you know, is used daily throughout the city. A wikipedia article should provide factual information relevant to conditions as they are and not support a specific political agenda of re-writing history. -- Abut 03:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no reason to implement the Ukranian transliteration until it dominates over the Russian transliteration. For now, it is quite far from it. 9x far. Reginmund 20:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Even More Kyiv Kyiv 

message: User:hkdd changed all the mentioning of Kiev to Kyiv and removed sourced information about the languages spoken in the city. If you look into the archives of this talk page, you would find an intensive discussion about the proper name for the city. The result was to use Kiev per WP:UE - it has 10 times of Internet usage of Kiev and the major news outlets still use Kiev. 
If you want to change it, please start a discussion here or on WP:RM. Having the article named Kiev and the internal usage Kyiv only confuse the western readers who are the main target audience of the article.
Also please do not remove sourced info Alex Bakharev 09:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You, Burlaka and Hkdd are the same person. That kind of deceitful sock puppetry is against the rules here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Horlo. The amount of work you invested in this research is quite impressive. You showed that Kyiv is indeed used in English as well as others showed that Kiev is used as well. The question we have to answer, therefore, is not which of the two is "correct" as they both are (both can be found in mainstream media, encyclopedias and dictionaries and you cannot argue that Britannica or Webster's entry are incorrect English.) The issue we have is a more subtle. Which of the two English name is more compliant with the Wikipecia's naming conventions to serve for the title of the article. For this we have rules outlined at WP:NCGN and WP:NC(UE). I am sure, we can compile an even more expansive list of Kiev usage. The question here is not who beats whom. The consensus that Kiev is indeed the most commonly used English name, as shown at the WP:RM survey seems to have been overwhelming. May I suggest you invest some effort in adding content to an article and referencing it? Thanks, --Irpen 03:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes by [[User:hkdd]] 

message: *Oppose.
:#The Ukrainian laws do not regulate the English language and do not define what is "right" and what is "wrong". That is defined by the dictionaries. Ukrainian laws only regulate what spelling should be used by the Ukrainian government bodies.  Unlike Ukrainian and Russian, which have a formal regulatory body through the subject committees in their respective Academies of Sciences, the English language does not have such official regulatory body. Government agencies can advice what name is to be used in the government publications, true, but they do not define what usage is "correct". Therefore, there is no mention of the term "correct" vs "incorrect" name per se in our naming conventions. English encyclopedias and dictionaries choose the names for their article's entries based on the common usage. Our naming conventions, WP:NC(UE) also uses the term "most commonly used". The latest editions of Britannica uses Kiev as well as the major media, which confirms that this is the prevailing usage for now. Wikipedia should reflect that as well as prescribed by NC. 
:#The most indicative reflection of "prevailing name, currently used in English" is the major players in the anglophone media market. CNN, AP, BBC, Reuters, CBC, NYTimes, et., etc., etc. use Kiev and they  are the most indicative of the prevailing current usage, not the Govermnental web-sites which are hardly read. In fact the very AP article that reported the switch by the US government says: "The Associated Press continues to spell the name of the capital Kiev."
:#If only some of those who endlessly debate the issue were interested in contributing any content to the article but the endless naming wars.
:Irpen 05:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey (section break 1)

message: :Any additional comments:
Be it resolved that a new page, Kyiv, be started, and Kiev be redirected to it.
I would like to open a poll on this question.
Here are my arguments (in no particular order) for the move:
1.   Kyiv is the correct form. When people search in an encyclopaedia, they look for correct information, not popular information. The problem of confusion with Kiev can be easily overcome with a simple re-direct and explanation at the top of the page. This is just another example of how Wikipedia is much more powerful than a traditional paper encyclopaedia. I give people the benefit of the doubt that they will pretty quickly clue into what’s happening.
2.   Kyiv is becoming more and more common – gaining currency as it were – while Kiev is disappearing. This argument is actually in two parts: 
a) Within the last two years, the United States government, National Geographic, Citibank, Microsoft, the B.B.C. news service, C.B.C. news service, A.B.C. (Australia) news service, ABC networks  (U.S.), the Guardian newspaper (UK), the Globe and Mail newspaper (the largest newspaper in Canada), and many other government, NGO, and private businesses have switched to Kyiv. Many others, such as the Christian Science Monitor and ING bank are currently switching over, temporarily using both. Any surfers looking for more in-depth information about Kyiv who come to Wikipedia from any of the above-mentioned sources, and are directed to a page called Kiev, will be confused.
b) The number of individuals using Kyiv is increasing. This cannot be empirically measured, including by means of the google test, but if all of the educational atlases & maps printed by Rand Mcnally and Mapquest use Kyiv, as well as publications such as National Geographic, Kiev will become less and less widespread. This is an assumption, but it is logical, and something to think about.
This transition is happening NOW, not in the future. By changing now, Wikipedia would reflect current events as they unfold.
3.   Kyiv is more popular among contributors for the Wikipedia site. I actually counted the number of people – throughout all 4 archives – in favour and against the use of Kyiv, and the number for Kyiv is 33, while the number for Kiev is 21. More than a 50% difference for Kyiv.
There is a popular complaint that if only people would contribute something to the page, rather than whine over the name, Wikipedia would benefit. This is true, but I submit that people do not want to contribute to something which is mis-named.
4.   Kiev is a pejorative term. I think that many native English speakers don’t realize that for Ukrainians, including people born in English-speaking countries, Kiev is as offensive as “nigger”, “coolie”, “chink”, or “nip”. This is not connected to the political situation now. It is, however, summed up beautifully in the Valuev Circular of 1863 by Russian prince Valuev: “There has never been a Ukrainian language, there is no Ukraine language, and there can never be a Ukraine language”. This is the baggage that “Kiev” carries with it. Again, I want to stress that this does not affect my relations with Russians, but it does affect my relations with Kiev. 
There it is. 
In order to keep this discussion as focussed as possible, let’s stay away from discussions about anything else, including the aircraft carriers, chicken, and computer language, called Kiev.
Also, as many people have so correctly pointed out, this is the English Wikipedia. Therefore, although input is welcome from everybody, I suggest that more weight be placed on votes by native English speakers. 
I apologize for my long winded-ness, but I think that this covers most of the arguments used against the move to Kyiv in the past. If you have an opposing opinion, I’d love to discuss it with you.
So what should it be – Kyiv or Kiev?
Horlo
: I have banged on the same drum years ago (talk archive), but Wikipedia naming conventions don't support the change, and there are more important things to work on.  
: Article names are not political statements, they just reflect the most common current usage, and in English that is still "Kiev".  The most general references like the OED support this view (my Canadian Oxford Dictionary says "see Kiev" under the headword Kyiv, and that's an improvement on the previous editions).  Wikipedia's mandate is not to set the precedent, but to follow it.  The use of the Russian transliteration "Kiev" might bug you, but it is the most-used name for the city in English, and can't be considered pejorative because that is the only name most English-speakers have ever heard.
: There are much more important tasks on Wikipedia to put your energy into.  The truth is the only durable propaganda, so please:
:# Read about Wikipedia's basic criteria of citing sources, reliability, and verifiability.
:# See what information is still missing in important articles like Ukrainian language, History of Ukraine, Ukrainian People's Republic, Ukraine after the Russian Revolution, Ukrainian SSR, etc.
:# Don't fight over controversial issues, but work to reveal the incontrovertible facts.  Goodness knows there's enough to keep us occupied for years to come.
:# Write.
: Regards. —Michael Z. 2007-07-30 05:29 Z
Hello, and thank you for your comments.
I agree that the titles of articles are not made as political statements, but in some cases they automatically take them on. 
I submit that there is no one easy way to judge what is common and what is not. In the last few years many governments, schools (including the U of T), businesses, and media sources have begun using Kyiv. You yourself mentioned that now the Canadian Oxford is using Kyiv. This is not something that will happen, this is something that is happening. Because of the precedents set by Beijing and Mumbai, this change need not drag out for very long. Outside of the US, most major news services - CBC, CTV, ABC, BBC, ABC (US), and various newspapers including The Globe and Mail and The Guardian -   have already changed to Kyiv. Microsoft. Citibank. The list goes on. I am not advocating setting the precedent, I am advocating reflecting what is currently happening.
Ten years ago, I would agree with you that Kiev was the only name that many native English speakers had heard. However, after the World Cup, Orange Revolution, Klitschko brothers, recent political crisis, Russia cutting oil supplies through the pipeline in Ukraine, and even Eurovision and the UEFA championship, and the fact that the previous Pope was half Ukrainian, have put Ukraine on more people's maps. There, they find Kyiv, at least if its a Rand McNally or Mapquest map. Then, most people get confused by sites such as this.
I don't think that most people are using Kiev pejoratively intentionally, but that name nevertheless has those connotations, and that is one thing that I want people to realize. I have faith in the goodwill of not only Wikipedians but also people in general, and once they realize what their comments mean, they will stop.
I like your statement that the truth is the only durable propaganda. I believe that the truth will always win.
I will happily contribute to Wikipedia, but I think that this must be resolved first, as this affects just about every topic that you mentioned. Also, in the archives I counted 33 people for Kyiv and 21 people for Kiev. I think that this topic turned off many other people.
Thanks,
Horlo 06:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am just a little bit puzzled.  You believe it is a well known fact that the previous pope was half-Ukrainian?  Clearly it cannot be that well known, since neither English nor Ukrainian Wikipedia has any mention of it, as far as I can tell. Balcer 07:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Neutral But, as to Horlo's assertion that Kiev is a pejorative term I disagree. I know dozens of people in Kiev, both Ukrainian and Russian speakers, and the majority use Kiev (when using English). Why is this? Because Russian language is still dominant in Kiev, with most residents speaking Russian over Ukrainian. Now, if you are from Lvov, then yeah, Kiev is likely going to be offensive (as well as anything else remotely Russian), but for the vast majority of Ukrainians, particularly those in Kiev, and Odessa, Donetsk, Kharkov, the Crimea, etc (basically all of Eastern Ukraine), the use of Kiev is not insulting or pejorative. Now if we had articles at Khokhol language or Culture of Malorussia, then yeah, these would be pejorative (although I admit to using Malorussia when talking to people I know in Ukraine when discussing similarities between the two countries), but to call Kiev a pejorative term because it is "Russian", but yet Kiev (the subject in question). is basically a Russian speaking city, is a bit of a stretch. --Russavia 09:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 17:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: like here Johnbod 22:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about this report, and this report ... and this report ... and this report ... and this report ... and this report. I could go on forever. Searching for "Kiev" on the BBC's news website yields 231 pages, whereas searching for "Kyiv" on the same site yields ... wait for it ... 4 measly pages. And it certainly isn't true that they only use "Kyiv" when talking about their office in Kiev, as this page, this page and this page will show you. I know Horlo that you're not particularly interested in facts; but rather, the "facts" that you find are merely slaves to your emotional desire to change Kiev's spelling in English to accord with Ukrainian nationalist reconstruction. You and I both know that's the way it is. I doubt anyone here takes seriously your pretense to be neutral either ... I liked it particularly when you said that it "appears that some editors are starting to let emotion into the discussion", which of course was in the discussion from the beginning when you, your sockpuppets and their friends began bombarding this encyclopedia page with their nationalistic campaign. I mean, Horlo, I respect your passion and the fact that you are prepared to devote time to change the world, but let's not go insulting people's intelligence. If nothing else, that will do you and your cause no good. Although not outnumbered by "Russian imperialists", Ukrainian nationalists are still small-fry on wikipedia; Use Englishers generally rule the waves here; just wait it out for a few years and you may well have them on your side. In the mean time, you lost that vote very heavily ... so heavily that it's pretty clear that your efforts on this occasion are going to be a complete waste of time. I suggest you devote yourself now to something where you can actually make a useful contribution. I mean, I trust you are not here merely to press one issue? Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  PS, on my MS Word, Microsoft Office Word 2007, purchased in Seattle, WA, in April 2007, Kiev is not regarded as a mistake, though Kyiv is not underscored there as it is in Mozilla Firefox. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry but it simply is NOT an old form which is disappearing. Everyone I know in academia uses it and every map I have ever seen has it. The comparison with thou and hast is ludicrous. we are speaking about accepted spellings and pronunciations of place-names in the ENGLISH-speaking world over two thousand years. You may not like it, but KIEV has never varied. David Lauder 18:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Alas, it is all too clear that you are pushing a Ukrainian nationalist agenda here which is the sort of thing WP can do without. Digging about trying to locate a school or college which actually uses, wholly or otherwise, the latest spellings doesn't really help, any more than me telling you that the London 'Daily Telegraph still calls Bombay, correctly, Bombay, and not Mumbles or whatever the current crop of stupid nationalists have changed it to. Doubtless you would strongly disapprove of the fading batch of obituaries which still refer to people being born in Lemberg. One of the glories of our language is that we have not caved in to the political correctness of every silly government which comes along and changes the names of cities and towns to suit current trends. If we did that each generation would lose all idea of human geography. As I said before, we spell the names of cities and towns as we see them. Even the populace of St.Petersburg continued to call their city 'Peter' after the Bolsheviks had changed it to to Leningrad, and it is a credit to most of our cartographers that they continued to use the original name on our maps putting one or the other name in brackets while the silliness persisted. We don't need Political Correctness on Wikipedia. You ought to abandon this campaign and do more constructive work. David Lauder 20:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Learn the rules, sockpuppet! They don't control the English language! Kiev is not incorrect just because anothert country says it is. We don't tell them how to use their language and they shouldn't tell us how to use ours. Google tests show 9x more hits for "Kiev" than "Kyiv". Mind you, I'm not biased. I actually prefer "Kyiv" personally but I am faithful to Wikipedia's rules and Wikipedia's rules say that it stays. Reginmund 16:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You know, incivility can get you blocked. Cut the sarcasm. Kee-ev and Kiy-yiv are rather too close to call either of them incorrect. Especially when they are in a different language, the pronunciation may be altered. Is Warsaw incorrect? NO, just because it is spoken that way in English, doesn't make it incorrect. Same principle with Kiev. Lose your incivility because its encouraging me to report you. Reginmund 20:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Did you read my post? I said that I use "Kyiv" personally. That doesn't make me biased. The reason I oppose the name change is because it goes against WP:COMMONNAME. Let us not speculate here. Reginmund 20:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: With respect to the most common uses, media enterprises are not superior to the general public. Nor is the fact that everyone you know uses "Kyiv"; that is original research. The most precise way of determining the most common usage is the Google test. Kiev is 9x more popular in common parlance than Kyiv. Reginmund 00:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contrary to frequent assertions, the BBC actually still uses KIEV  

message: Hello,
It appears that there are, according to Wikipedia naming convention, many ways of determining commonality. One is the Google test, one is what the US government uses.
The US government uses Kyiv. Google supports Kiev. How about we agree that these two arguments cancel each other out, and look for other sources.
Thanks,
Horlo 01:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The common name simply states to use the most "common name" (hence the title). The U.S. government doesn't determine this (they don't take census as to which variant of "Kiev/Kyiv" Americans use); the majority of English speakers do. That is where Google comes in.  Reginmund 01:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: On Wikipedia, it is not up to a foreign government to determine the name of a country in English. It is determined by the most common usage. Read WP:COMMONNAME for reference. As determined by a previous Google test, "Kiev" is nine times more common than "Kyiv". Reginmund 04:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google vs. the Government 

message: Hello,
Deeper and deeper digging into the rules of Wikipedia have helped me find that there is a rule for naming conventions on Ukrainian names
It is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Ukrainian_names
It states that when describing Ukrainian geographical names, the Ukrainian National system will be used.
The Ukrainian National system uses Kyiv.
I don't want to hide behind rules, as that is against the spirit of Wikipedia. However, I do think that this shifts the onus onto proving why NOT to move it, rather than why to move it.
Thanks,
Horlo 01:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be hiding when you leave out the last sentence...
For historic reasons, many names are also presented in Russian, Polish, etc. Reginmund 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you agree that "also presented in Russian, Polish, etc" means that the Russian, Polish, etc. spelling is "also presented", not that they are used exclusively? 199.125.109.35 22:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "Kiev" isn't only used on the English/Russian websites. Did you actually scan every Google page and determine this? I don't think so. Seeing as The Guardian, The BBC, Defra, UNECE, Expedia, British Airways, Radisson Hotels, Encyclopædia Britannica, Tiscali SpA, Time Magazine all use "Kiev" and none of which are written outside of the Anglosphere goes to show not only that "Kiev" is not only used by Russian travel sites, but since its usage is so prevelent in the English-speaking media, it had to be influenced by common parlance (i.e. that's where all of the Google hits come in). But, you're missing the point. What matters most is the prevelance of "Kiev" and even if Jesus used the Ukrainian transliteration, it wouldn't fly over the majority of English-speakers that use the Russian transliteration. Now who's logic is flawed? Reginmund 04:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Naming Conventions - Ukrainian Names 

message: Hello,
I am not very knowledgeable about the intricacies of google, so could you please explain this test. I went to the Advanced Google Search, limited the search for English results, and typed in Kyiv. The result was 1,820,000. I did the same for Kiev, and the result was 1,900,000.
Could you please explain these results?
I am not being pedantic here, I have never used this form of google before. What's the difference between this form and the non-advanced form? 
Thanks,
Horlo 03:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Advanced Search results 

message: The proper way of saying the name of the capitol of Ukraine is Kyiv, not Keiv. Keiv is pronounced in Russian and will not have this because it is a name a city in Ukraine. I am from an English speaking country and everyone here that is Ukrainian says Kyiv because it is the proper way of saying it. We would like to change the spelling of this on the page on Wikipedia so people that would like to look this up will know that this is how you spell in Ukrainian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.251.50.204 (talk • contribs) 
:Take that argument here. BTW I doubt that you are an English speaker as the name is Kiev not Keiv. Reginmund 01:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kyiv not Keiv 

message: Hello,
Thank you for the chance to re-state my arguments.
Here is a source which shows that some find the spelling Kiev offensive.
http://www.bestofukraine.com/kyiv.htm
About the way Wikipedia chooses names: there is a process of establishing how to name an article, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions
The list even includes how to spell Ukrainian names, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Ukrainian_names
Should this prove inconclusive, there are steps outlined in the naming conflict page, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Other_considerations
I would like to point out the specific note of:
A city, country or people, by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk. The country formerly called Burma now calls itself Myanmar. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names.
Also, the section entitled: Identification of Common Names Using External References:
1. The Google Test (advanced search option);
2. International Organisations;
3. Major English-language media outlets;
4. Reference Works;
5. Geographic name servers.
Please show me which of these steps state that the capital of Ukraine should be Kiev.
Thanks,
Horlo 19:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-identity is no rule on Wikipedia. We go by Myanmar because the English lexicon goes by Myanmar, not because Myanmar does. Now I wouldn't be suprised that due to some anti-Russian sentiment, there are Ukranians that find that transliteration offensive, but I can find you more anti-Semites that find it offensive that Wikipedia doesn't deny the Holocaust. It has already been stated BTW that for historical reasons, Russian names may be used. Reginmund 01:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Naming conventions 

message: I just skimmed over this page to catch up on the chatter.  Wow, nearly over 30,000 words generated, so far [broke 30k while I was typing].  I encourage the editors here to try adding some non-controversial material to a few articles in this encyclopedia. But if you prefer to chat, I'll leave behind a few tidbits to chew on (and call out some "facts" presented above).
Naming is complicated.  I don't believe anyone who presents a few figures and says that the answer to the naming question here is resolved.  Kubijovyč wrote: 
The editors encountered great difficulty in systematizing both the terminology and transliteration.  The choices made are not entirely satisfactory but are consistent within their own frame of reference and represent a consensus of many different views.  The editors are aware of other shortcomings which in a work of such scope are unavoidable, especially as the contributors and editors engaged on the task are scattered over many parts of two continents. —"Introduction" to Ukraine: A Concise Encyclopaedia, vol 1, p xxxi.
Also, "some well-known geographical names retain the form generally accepted in English usage, although they differ from the original form.  Among these are the following:...", including "Kiev (Ukrainian: Kyïv)".
That was written back in 1963, and reprinted in 1970 and 1982.  Also Subtelny in his 1988 History (reprinted 2000), Paul Robert Magocsi in 1996, Anna Reid in 2000/2003, and Andrew Wilson in 2000/2002, and their editors didn't appear to believe that the name "Kiev" was as offensive as the epiphet "nigger".
"Kiev" does correspond with the transliteration of the Russian Киев, in six out of seven standardized transliteration systems.  
But the spelling "Kiev" is rather established in English.  In the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, 2nd ed. (2004), Kiev appears as the main headword ("the main headword represents the most common form in Canadian usage", p xiii), and Kyiv as a variant spelling with the restrictive label "Ukrainian Kyiv" ("such labels indicate only that the variants are very infrequent in Canadian practice, not that they are unacceptable", p xiv), and a secondary headword which merely cross-references the first.  The Oxford is a valuable reference because it is based on a survey of the language as it is currently used.  Does anyone have access to the full OED's notes about the name?
Does the CBC really use "Kyiv"?  In 2004 they officially stopped, but from Googling their web site, it looks like they aren't so careful with the forms.  I'd be interested to see what the latest Canadian Press style book recommends.
So good luck.  I'm glad that the discussion has remained mostly civil, and mostly concerned with the relevant facts.  
Please consider the possibility that after another 30,000 words, this argument will peter out with no clear consensus to change anything.  When the question re-emerges in a few weeks or months, will you come back with some significant edits  under your belt, or just a lot of talk? —Michael Z. 2007-08-05 20:54 Z
:Michael, thanks for the 'tidbits'. Very interesting. As for your calls to our Kyivizers to actually write some content, I think this effort is moot. I tried so many times above to get Horlo interested in content writing. No luck so far :( Oh, and Paul Robert Magocsi is also a red link? Any takers? Never mind, I will do it. Happy edits, --Irpen 21:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking in on the discussion