Talk:Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic

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)


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

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)


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

I've requested a move, so that the naming reflects the actual usage during soviet times. --Soman (talk) 07:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per above and evidence from contemporary map. Snocrates 07:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support only moving to "Kirghiz SSR"; any move to "* Soviet Socialist Republic" needs to be handled on a wider basis. --Golbez (talk) 07:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support move to Kirghiz SSR The Oxford English Dictionary only recognises Kirghiz. DrKay (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * (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)

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)


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

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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 Kyrgyzstan in 1991, and there are absolutely no arguments to back up that this state existed until 1993. That would be rewriting history. A new state is not just a matter of all-new constitutions, but also of its status and form of government. Afghanistan has had a lot of states since the abolishment of monarchy in the 1970s: the First Republic (1973–1978), Democratic Republic/Second Republic (1978–1992), the Islamic State (1992–2001), the Islamic Emirate (1996–2001), the Afghan Interim Administration (2001–2002), the Afghan Transitional Administration (2002–2004), and the present-day Islamic Republic since 2004. Yet they have only had four constitutions since then: 1976, 1987, 1990 and 2004. Is that to say that we should change these yearspans totally as well, so that most of these states didn't exist? 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)
 * , 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)

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)
 * Did you read your talk page? Licensing and copyright don't allow for copy & paste moves. Regarding moving the article / giving it a new title: see 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)
 * Please list your wp:RS? Thank you Adakiko (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @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)
 * 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)
 * Try searching with the words enclosed in double quotes. Without them returns a mess. Adakiko (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @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)
 * The relevant issue is what is the wp:COMMONNAME. If everyone on "blogs, sales sites, and so on." is using the current Wikipedia article title, that supports that it's the common name. I really don't care one way or the other. I suspect your move would be contested. You need to do a WP:PCM. I am done here. Adakiko (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)
 * support per nom—blindlynx 13:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * @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)

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?
 * Oppose per WP:TITLECHANGES and the spirit of WP:NEOLOGISM. Most of the nominator's evidence presented above (e.g. Kyrgyz vs. Kirghiz, Kyrgyzstan vs. Kirghizia) does not relate to this topic in particular.  The last two ngrams are on topic and they show a slight plurality for "Kyrgyz" in the last few years.  (Adding the alternative "Kirgiz" [sans h] gives these results.)  But without a more significant or long-term shift, Wikipedia should retain the spelling used at the time and not an anachronism.  There is further discussion of the issue at #|this section above.  —  AjaxSmack  02:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A bit of revisionism going on here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Necrothesp Where do you see it ? In the Kyrgyz SSR, there were actually two state languages ​​(Kyrgyz and Russian). Why is the name of the state in one of them (the language of the titular nation) - Кыргыз Советтик Социалисттик Республикасы (Kyrgyz Sovettik Socialisttik Republicasy, Anthem of Kyrgyz SSR) not taken as a basis for naming? In addition, many authoritative sources also use this name (foe example).
 * @AjaxSmack You're talking anochrism. I don't see anochrism. I observe that after 1991 i.e. after secession from the USSR. In English-language sources, endonym (self-name) Kyrgyz - "Кыргыз" (Kyrgyz) begins to be used. Instead of the Russian exonym - "Киргиз". Since 1991, the English-speaking world began to communicate directly with Kyrgyzstan, so we are seeing a dynamic in the use of terms towards the "Kyrgyz SSR". I see it as logical that the Kyrgyz SSR should be named according to the same principle. Indeed, in the same Kyrgyz language, it had its own name.
 * I was put in a bad light: as if I'm a revisionist and generally hold a grudge against someone, so I'm going here to change everything((
 * In the previous section, it was said that, out of habit, Russian-speaking Wikipedians out of habit, they use the terms "Kirgizia" and "Kirgiz" in relation to us (mainly from Russia, Ukraine; whereas Russian-speaking people (not only ethnic Russians) in Kyrgyzstan and some other countries of the post-Soviet space use "Kyrgyz" and "Kyrgyzstan", instead of "Kirgiz " and "Kirgizia"). What can we see in the text of this article. Instead of the established name of the country in English - "Kyrgyzstan", everywhere instead it says "Kirghizia". Which is translation of the exonym from Russian and not widely used in English.
 * Therefore, I wrote that this article was written a long time ago and could take into account the cultural influence of certain people. Whereas the Kyrgyz in the early 2000s and later did not have practically wide access to the Internet, they knew English poorly and did not know about Wikipedia. Therefore, at one time there were no discussions regarding the title and text of the article. I also wrote about the obvious influence of Wikipedia on vocabulary. This is shown by numerous studies. Therefore, the general population, seeking information, saw this article on Wikipedia. And they reproduced them in their works (videos on YouTube, blogs, etc).
 * In response, you pointed me to WP:NEOLOGISM. I cited this as an explanation of the Google search results and that the article did not reach consensus in the absence of other editors who could lead the discussion for the reasons described above. As arguments, I gave the results of Search_engine_test and gave an explanation, because every question needs to be sorted out. There is no single template for all cases. Bosogo (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the shift in English from Kirghiz to Kyrgyz was pushed through well after USSR was disbanded. Applying 'Kyrgyz' retroactively creates a neologism. --Soman (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Soman 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.
 * In addition, you can verify this by looking at Google Sholar results for the term "Kyrgyz SSR" from 1936 to 1991. There are 321 results.
 * XIX (do not write about the meaning of the term "Kyrgyz" before 1925 (was also the correct usage before), here is about the word usage)
 * ''Fuchs, K. A. "Prebyvanie v Kazani Kyrgyzskij han Zhangir [Stay in Kazan Kyrgyz Khan Jiangius]." Kazanskij vestnik-Kazan Bulletin, 10 [in Russian] (1826).
 * Meyer, L. "Kyrgyz Steppe of the Orenburg Department." (1865).
 * Kazantsev, I. "Opisaniye kyrgyz-kaysakov [Description of Kyrgyz-Kaisak]." Sankt Peterburg (1867).
 * Balkhashin, N. N. "About the Kyrgyz in general, about Muslims subject to Russia." St. Petersburg (1887).
 * Poyarkov, F. V. "From the area of Kyrgyz beliefs." Ethnographic review (1891): 41-43.
 * Maksimov, N. "People’s Court of the Kyrgyz." Journal of the Law Society,(8) (1897): 48-80.
 * XX
 * 00-10s
 * ''Dobromyslov, A. I. "Court in Kyrgyz Turgay area in XVIII-XIX centuries." (1904).
 * Tikhov, P. "About the music of the Turkestan Kyrgyz." Music and life. M (1910).
 * Karutts, R. "Among Kyrgyz and Turkmen at Mangyshlak." (1910): 60-64.
 * Sydykov, Osmonaaly. "Taryh Kyrgyz Shadmaniya: Kyrgyz sanjyrasy." (1914).
 * Potanin, N. I. "Kyrgyz Steppes and the Kokand Khanate in the Beginning of the XIX-th Century According to the Description of the Cornet." (1916).
 * Brower, Daniel R. "Kyrgyz Nomads and Russian Pioneers…." art. cit (1916): 44.''
 * 30s
 * Voevodovsky, M. V., and M. P. Gryaznov. "U-Sun burial grounds on the territory of the Kyrgyz SSR." Bull. Ancient History 3 (1938): 162-179.
 * 50s
 * Abduldaev, Èsenkul. Kyrgyz tilinin Čatkal govoru. Kyrgyz SSR Ilimder Akademiâsy, 1956.
 * Vyhodcev, I. V. "Vegetation of pastures and fields in Kyrgyz SSR." Frunze: Publishing House AS KyrgSSR (1956).
 * Pospelov AG, Zaprometov NG, Domashova AA. Fungal flora of the Kyrgyz SSR. Frunze Acad. Sci Kyrgyz SSR. 1957;1:129.
 * Tokobaev, M. M. "Helminths of rodents in Kyrgyzia." Works of the Institute Zoology and Parasitology of the Kyrgyz SSR Academy of Sciences 7 (1959): 133-142.''
 * 60s
 * ''Ghan, P. A., V. M. Djanaeva, I. G. Karafa-Korbut, L. S. Krivosheeva, A. I. Kunchenko, N. I. Orlova, G. F. Protopopov, D. I. Prutenskii, and V. I. Tkachenko. "Trees and shrubs of Kyrgyzstan." Academia NAUK Kyrgyz SSR, Frunze (1961).
 * Tülögabylov, Mukaš. Kyrgyz baldar adabijaty. Kyrgyz SSR Ilimder Akad. Basmasy, 1963.
 * Batmanov, I. A. "Modern Kyrgyz. Frunze." (1963).
 * Bakirov, A. B. "Some questions of a metamorphism of the Atbashinsky ridge." Questions Precambrian stratigraphy and the lower Palaeozoic of Kyrgyzia. Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Soviet Socialist Republic (1964).
 * Ryazantseva, Z. A. "The Climate of the Kyrgyz SSR." The Geography department of the Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic. Frunze, Ilim, 291pp (1965).
 * Nurbekov, K. N. "Kyrgyz SSR Government and Law History." Kyrgyz State University, Frunze: Mektep 1 (1965): 155.
 * Makarov, V. I., A. V. Makarova, and L. I. Solovieva. "Quaternary deposits, geomorphology and neotectonics of Kyrgyz SSR." In Final Report of the Kyrgyz Quaternary Expedition of 1957–1969, Geological Department of Moscow University [in Russian], pp. 275-277. Izd. MGU Moscow, 1969''
 * 70s
 * ''Turbin, L. I., N. V. Aleksandrova, A. G. Konyukhov, and K. D. Pomazkov. "The Paleogene and Neogene of northeastern Kyrgyzstan." In Geology of the Soviet Union. The Kyrgyz SSR [in Russian], pp. 256-268. Nedra Moscow, 1972.
 * Poyarkova, Z. N. "Cretaceous system." Geology of the USSR; Pomazkov, KD, Ed.; Geology of Kyrgyz SSR (1972): 224-236.
 * Osmonbetov, K. O. "Geological map of the Kyrgyz SSR, scale 1: 500000." VSEGEI, Leningrad (in Russian) (1980).''
 * 80s
 * ''Adyshev, M. M., F. T. Kashirin, S. U. Umurzakov, T. M. Almaev, A. F. Voronina, P. G. Grigorenko, B. D. Dzhamgerchinov et al. "Atlas of Kyrgyz SSR: Natural Conditions and Resources, vol. 1." Central Administrative Board of Geodetics and Cartography, Council of Ministers, Moscow (1987).
 * Dukhovny, V. "to the First Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Kyrgyz SSR, Mr." Hodast P"., Retrieved from the Central State Archive of the Kyrgyz Republic in 0101/3649 (1986): 2018.
 * Zinkova, Z. A., and M. I. Pushkareva. "The Atlas of the Kyrgyz SSR." Nature conditions and Resources Main department of Geodesy and mapping under Ministry SSSR. Geography department of the Institution of the Geology by Adishev MM under Academy of the Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic. Moscow (1987): 157.
 * Kiselev, V. V., F. Kh Apayarov, V. T. Komarevtsev, E. M. Sinusova, and E. N. Tsyganok. "U-Pb zircon ages for Precambrian basement units of the Hercynian Middle Tianshan. Izvestiya of the Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz SSR." Phys. Technical Math. Sci 4 (1988): 76-82.
 * Ömürzakov, S.Ö., Keshikbaev, A.A., Makhrina, L.I., Eshenkulov, T. and Ryskulbekova, B., 1988. A dictionary of toponyms of the Kyrgyz SSR.
 * Rakhmatulina, E. K. "Mosses of herbarium of Institute of Biology of Academy of Science of Kyrgyz SSR." Izvestya Akademii Nauk Kyrgyzskoj SSR seriya Khimiko-technologicheskie i biologicheskie nauki 4 (1990): 48-56.
 * '' Bosogo (talk) 08:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @AjaxSmack@Necrothesp@Soman,@Ymblanter WP:NODEMOCRACY.--Bosogo (talk) 09:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , sorry, but your methodology is faulty. Take for example "A dictionary of toponyms of the Kyrgyz SSR" that you mention above. It was published in Russian and the translation 'Kyrgyz' is clearly added as English translation after disbanding USSR. We find the same work listed as "Dictionary of Geographical Names of Kirghiz SSR" in English sources. In 1988, the title was 'Словарь географических названий Киргизской ССР', I can't find the 1974 version online. The work that you refer to as "The Paleogene and Neogene of northeastern Kyrgyzstan" published in 1972 was well, in reality, called 'Палеоген и неоген Северо-. Восточной Киргизии' (using the Russian 'Kirgizia' instead of present-day Kyrgyzstan). Another work you mentioned would be this one: https://www.amazon.com/Kirghiz-steppes-Khanate-beginning-century/dp/5519439478 . And so forth. --Soman (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at Google books, I only find the following 2 English language works, where the term 'Kyrgyz' appears in 19th century works:
 * The Russians in Central Asia: Their Occupation of the Kirghiz Steppe and the... 1865 - two mentions of a 'Kyrgyz-Beg', but for the ethnic group 'Kirghiz' is used.
 * Russian Central Asia: Including Kuldja, Bokhara, Khiva and Merv, Volume 1 1885 - uses the word 'Kyrgyz' to state that this is the pronounciation the 'Kirghese' used themselves.
 * Looking at 'Kyrgyz SSR', the term appears in some books from 1991 onwards... I found one mention in a 1970 work, where 'Kyrgyz SSR' is referred to as alternate spelling of 'Kirgiz SSR', Soviet Geography
 * USSR Facts & Figures Annual (1992) would have been compiled whilst USSR existed but published after it disbanded, uses 'Kyrgyz SSR' --Soman (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur with User:Soman. The copious list you gave above is made up (entirely?) of non-English sources.  I clicked on the Google Scholar link you provided.  I then chose the second entry (for no particular reason):  [CITATION] A dictionary of toponyms of the Kyrgyz SSR SÖ Ömürzakov, AA Keshikbaev, LI Makhrina… - 1988 - Science Publishers, Frunze.(in … Cited by 8 Related articles.  Next I searched Google for that title.  I clicked on the first hit and got to an academic paper" "New records in vascular plants alien to Kyrgyzstan."  Scrolling down to the citation in the paper, I found "Ömürzakov SÖ, Keshikbaev AA, Makhrina LI, Eshenkulov T, Ryskulbekova B (1988) Словарь географических названий Киргизской ССР. [A dictionary of toponyms of the Kyrgyz SSR]. Science Publishers, Frunze, 213 pp. [In Russian]."  The author of the paper chose to transliterate Киргизской ССР as "Kyrgyz SSR", even though the article uses the Russian "Kirgizskoj SSR".  I went back to the Google Scholar results and clicked on the "Cited by 8".  The 8 articles that mention this source are all authored or co-authored by Georgy A. Lazkov.  A cursory look at the other entries on the Google Scholar results list show similar reasons for such titles.  And it seems that none of the works cited were originally in English.  That an author has chosen to use Kyrgyz for Киргизской in a translation of a Russian book title in the bibliography of his academic paper does not really reflect what is meant by common English usage. —  AjaxSmack  16:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * USSR Facts & Figures Annual (1992) would have been compiled whilst USSR existed but published after it disbanded, uses 'Kyrgyz SSR' --Soman (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur with User:Soman. The copious list you gave above is made up (entirely?) of non-English sources.  I clicked on the Google Scholar link you provided.  I then chose the second entry (for no particular reason):  [CITATION] A dictionary of toponyms of the Kyrgyz SSR SÖ Ömürzakov, AA Keshikbaev, LI Makhrina… - 1988 - Science Publishers, Frunze.(in … Cited by 8 Related articles.  Next I searched Google for that title.  I clicked on the first hit and got to an academic paper" "New records in vascular plants alien to Kyrgyzstan."  Scrolling down to the citation in the paper, I found "Ömürzakov SÖ, Keshikbaev AA, Makhrina LI, Eshenkulov T, Ryskulbekova B (1988) Словарь географических названий Киргизской ССР. [A dictionary of toponyms of the Kyrgyz SSR]. Science Publishers, Frunze, 213 pp. [In Russian]."  The author of the paper chose to transliterate Киргизской ССР as "Kyrgyz SSR", even though the article uses the Russian "Kirgizskoj SSR".  I went back to the Google Scholar results and clicked on the "Cited by 8".  The 8 articles that mention this source are all authored or co-authored by Georgy A. Lazkov.  A cursory look at the other entries on the Google Scholar results list show similar reasons for such titles.  And it seems that none of the works cited were originally in English.  That an author has chosen to use Kyrgyz for Киргизской in a translation of a Russian book title in the bibliography of his academic paper does not really reflect what is meant by common English usage. —  AjaxSmack  16:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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)


 * 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)


 * (edit conflict), the discussion was closed by on August 30, four days after the last comment. Whilst you presented a long list of documents you grossly misrepresented your sources, as  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)
 * @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)
 * 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)

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)

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)