Talk:History of Kyiv

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

Discussion on image copyrights moved to subpage Talk:History of Kiev/Image copyright issues[edit]

(lets' continue there. --Irpen 15:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC))

Oppression vs dominance[edit]

Regarding the correction: in "Polish Catholic dominance" vs "oppression", I agree that "dominance" is a softer term, which we may keep for now as a less controversial. However, I want to make sure I understand the call to "cite sources". Is this a call for sources that would say that the policies of PLC towards Orthodoxy have, with time, evolved to what amounts to oppression? To start with, I can refer anyone to Kostomarov (for sure not a Polonophobe among the Historians in the RU Empire). There is even a discussion at his talk. I could quickly look up for more on this from other respected historians. Did I understand the "cite sources" call correctly? It just happens that this seemed to me too obviously known. I am not claiming this is how it was. All I am saying, is that many historical works say so without a doubt. --Irpen 19:27, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I reread several chapters from Kostomarov myself. If anyone doubts that the word "oppression" is appropriate, I recommend reading the chapters from his book devoted to the following historic figures available online: Bohdan Khmelnytsky [1], Konstanty Wasyl Ostrogski [2], Peter Mogila[3]. Not only Kostomarov is known for his views at times deviating from "official" line of thought in the RU Empire. The conclusion I make here, is based not on his opinions, but on the quotes he makes from official documents and the older chronicles. I could find his book online only in Russian, sorry. Additionally, I recommend the following chapters from modern Britannica's "History of Ukraine" article:

  • Lithuanian and Polish rule
    • Social changes
    • Religious developments
  • The Cossacks
    • The Khmelnytsky Insurrection
    • The Ruin
    • The autonomous hetman state and Sloboda Ukraine

If EB's "History of UA" article isn't enough, I can recommend EB's "History of PL" article, particularly the following subsections of "The Commonwealth" chapter: "Wladyslaw IV Vasa", "The Cossacks", "Bohdan Khmelnytsky". I happen to have full access to EB and these are just a couple of quotes:

"...Ukraine was “colonized” by both Polish and Ukrainian great nobles. Most of the latter gradually abandoned Orthodoxy to become Roman Catholic and Polish. These “little kings” of Ukraine controlled hundreds of thousands of “subjects”... The new Eastern-rite church became a hierarchy without followers while the forbidden Eastern Orthodox church was driven underground. Wladyslaw's recognition of the latter's existence in 1632 may have come too late. The Orthodox masses—deprived of their native protectors, who had become Polonized and Catholic—turned to the Cossacks."

it goes further:

" The heavy-handed behaviour of the “little kings,”... was resented even by small nobles and burghers. Growing socioeconomic antagonisms combined with religious tensions."

Can we return "oppression" in view of this? --Irpen 00:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Well, apart from the official recognition of Greek Catholic church (initially simply an Orthodox church accepting the Roman pope) was hardly a means of oppression. Note that there were no religious unrests because of that and the shift in denomination was peaceful (more like a peaceful change of government as opposed to civil-warish style of religious changes in other countries.
May I suggest you reread the quote above. Also, I agree that imposition of Unia on the population, was indeed a softer form of proselytising than that's time standard, but one can't seriously argue about its goals as well as the consequences. -Irpen
Also, a large number of eastern nobles (most notably in Belarus and eastern Ukraine) remained Orthodox even until the partitions - yet their powers were not limited.
Their powers were not limited in ruling their subjects, yes. But this effectively banned them from making a career to the upper echelons of the commonwealth. Treaty of Hadiach came later and was never implemented. That's another of "what ifs".
Also, the colonization seems like a term coined by Russian historiography, without much support in reality, as most of the Ruthenian magnates traced their roots to Kievan Ruthenia and even earlier. They were there when Lithuania conquered these lands, they retained their position when Poland overtook Ukraine, they remained there when Russia annexed it. The same set of families ruled the land since times immemorial - it was hardly a colonization or a take-over.
Who "coined" the term may argued without end. Certainly, different myths prevail in the history taught in Poland and to the East of it. The usage of this term here is noted by Britannica, which is neither RU, nor UA, nor PL written version of history. EB is known to be careful in the choice of words. We can argue how appropriate the term is, but the world historiography views it appropriate as per above. --Irpen
If we seek some proof of oppression, then the magnate's actions during and after the Chmielnicki's uprising come to my mind. However, although Ukraine was indeed drowned in blood, it was hardly an unpreceded action or a means of opression for itself (note the number of victims on both sides). But this seems like a completely different story. Halibutt 08:07, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
This is a different story, though connected with the original one. If I am not mistaken, I think you told somewhere that you can read Russian. Then may I suggest you take a look at the ref link I added to Konstanty Wasyl Ostrogski on the issue. --Irpen 17:29, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
I will reply here to all your comments, I personally hate it when someone divides my comments and puts his in the middle. It's much harder to follow the discussion and distinguish who said what.
As to colonization - the very term suggests that there was a huge number of settlers comming there. And indeed that's what Russian and Soviet historiography was trying to prove for the last 150 years: that the Poles living outside of the Medieval borders of Poland were in fact people from abroad, who moved to historically Russian (Russian, not Ruthenian) lands - to opress local people and so on. I've read about similar concepts in Ukrainian books as well; some historians there argue that the fact that the area of Lviv was inhabitated by a huge number of Poles was due to the fact that the local medieval Ukrainians were expelled and their place taken by Poles from the West.
Anyway, the guy you quoted uses the term colonization, though he probably might've meant cultural expansion rather than factual movement of settlers, since there was barely any such move until 1921 (up to 80.000 vets settled in lands formerly belonging to the tsar and his officials). Of course, people were moving through all of the Commonwealth, both eastwards and westwards, but the political and cultural dominance of the Polish culture in the east had hardly anything to do with colonization.
As to Hadziacz - this is indeed one of my favourite what-ifs and perhaps the last call for the Commonwealth to be saved. However, I fail to understand the rest of your statement. Of course, the Wiśniowiecki family had to adopt Catholicism in order to become kings, but this was a rather special case. Until infamous Jarema Wiśniowiecki their family fared quite well - after all they ruled the bigger part of Ukraine within the Commonwealth. Same for many others, who often were voivods or marshals. Just take a look at the number of Orthodox churches in the Ukraine built by local Orthodox nobles and the titles they received. Of course, with time (and the advent of the Vasas, perhaps the worst rulers we ever had) the religious tolerance diminished, but still the conflict was with the protestants, not with the Orthodox.
As to the link you posted - it seems like a fine example of 19th century style of Russian historiography, but mostly in style and not in choice of facts. So, if anything was done against Russia - it was wrong, just like the case of bad Świdrygiełło who put his comrade in arms in prison just for fun, while one of the guys "hated Poland so much that he invited the Tartars to invade it". Apart from the style, king Jagiełło "filling Russian lands with Catholic churches and giving Russian lands to Catholics" seems quite improbable. There aren't many late mediaeval catholic churches in the east, not even in Lwów (the cathedral there is one of the oldest, I guess). Also, you might find it funny that the only chapel he founded for the Wawel cathedral, a sacred place for most Poles even nowadays and sort of our national pantheon - is decorated in Byzantine paintings and was most probably an Orthodox chapel. Quite a nice example of ecumenism, don't you think? :)
Also, the interpretation of the Magdeburg Law as one of the means of oppression seems a complete rubbish. At that time it was granted to several thousands of villages and towns all around Central Europe. Of course it gave the locals greater rights than those granted by other local rulers. After all the main purpose of granting such self-governance and authonomy was to speed-up the development of the towns. Even Kraków was "re-located" on Magdeburg law, which soon became a problem for the nearby towns that could not develop as fast due to different legislation. Also, the Magdeburg law was not, as the author suggest, granted only to "new towns settled with Poles and Germans". It was granted to cities as old and multi-cultural as Lwów, Wrocław or Kraków, not to mention most towns in Silesia and Lesser Poland.
The author's remark that the boyars were admitted to szlachta only when they converted to Catholicism is wrong as well. The szlachta was quite a multi-cultural group and Jagiełło was the one to grant noblety to Tartars he settled in Poland and Lithuania. Yes, you guessed it: some of the szlachta were Muslim. Ostrogski, Radziwiłł, Sapieha or any other family of eastern provenience were also granted the same rights, eventhough they did not become Catholics until after several hundred years. Also, the author's remark that "although Casimir did not openly persecute Orthodox, he did not stop the expansion of Catholicism" seems fishy, as he suggests that there was something going on behind the scenes. Also, the analisis of where the aristocracy came from seems like a decent set of propaganda. The guy suggests that as long as there were local authoritarian rulers, there was everything ok with Ruthenia. However, as soon as Poland-Lithuania took over, the local nobles started to be the sole rulers. Yet, the guy does not mention that they had even greater powers before Poland or Lithuania arrived there. To add more to the confusion, he describes the end of medieval liberties of Ruthenian peasantry as if it was a special case, a process completely different from what happened in Masovia, Lesser Poland, Samogitia or Pomerania. While it was not, in every other part of the country (except for Masovia, where it never succeeded due to a huge percentage of szlachta there) the situation of peasantry worsened. Which of course can't be said of Muscovy, where the peasants never had similar rights - yet the author does not mention that fact.
And so on, and so forth. Basically, there is something fishy in almost all of the remarks in the link you provided. I'll try to finish the part in my spare time, but so far I got tired a tad. Halibutt 22:41, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, I am sorry I replied above in the manner that you "personally hate". I signed the responces and it seemed clear to me who said what. That you have different preferences, I had no way of knowing. I also sorry you "fail to understand the rest of my statement". Tell me which statement, I will try to rephrase it in better English.

Now, let's first separate two issues: your general disagreement with a particular scholarship and the issue at hand, which is whether it's appropriate to use "oppression" in the article (which is History of Kiev and not Polonization, Polonophobia, Kostomarov or the cryticism of his books). The quote from Britannica alone justifies it, I think. The EB isn't infallible of course, but its History of PL article cannot possibly be Polonophobic, since it must be written by some respectable scholar at EB's request, and most historians tend to be more philic rather than phobic towards the nation they study as their lifetime jobs. Then again, EB may be mistaken, but it is a very solid source which makes it up to a challenger to disprove with no less respectable sources. If you want to take this upon, I will be glad to help with other encyclopedias. I have full access to several and can look this up for you.

Now, I would be interested in your opinion when you finish reading, but would you mind moving this discussion to talk:Nikolay Kostomarov? BTW, I had a discussion there with another editor, which I hope, you find interesting. I say, let's move this there. What do you say? --Irpen 02:44, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

When was Kiev founded?[edit]

The article now claims that "Kiev was probably founded in the 5th century". This claim appears to be far-fetched as the date of the 5th century appeared only during Brezhnev era to suit the political demand for the celebration of the 1500th anniversary of Kiev. Archeological arguments sometimes raised to support the 5th century hypothesis are not adequate to confirm the existence of a city because people settled on hills near rivers since the stone age and in this fashion nearly every major European city can be asserted to be thousands years old. The accepted UNESCO standard for the date of city founding is the date when the city was first mentioned in written documents. By this standard, Kiev was fonded in the 8th century because the first written mentioning of Kiev was in a letter sent by Khozar Jews to a synagogue of Fustat, near Cairo. Arabic sources also first mention Kiev at about the same time.--Pecher 22:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pecher, you are of course right. This has already been brought up in Kiev's talk before the History of Kiev got spun out into a separate article. See Talk:Kiev/Archive 1#How_old_is_Kiev.3F.
I am afraid we can't do much better than that. Encyclopedias don't reflect truth, they reflect knowledge. Since it is widely considered that Kiev is 1500 years old, we have to mention it even though the reasons of this thinking may be influenced by non-historiographic events. OTOH, it would be a good idea to elaborate in the article on what you wrote above. Would you do it? --Irpen 04:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pritsak[edit]

The text below was added to an article by some anonymous editor. It is in a total disconnect with the rest of the article and doesn't fit in current form, if at all. Moved to talk for now. --Irpen 06:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen,

Why did you remove this text from the main body of the article on the history of Kyiv? I took it from an article by the respected Ukrainian historian Omeljan Pritsak, and it seems to be to be directly relevant to the question of when the city of Kyiv was founded, and by which people. --203.129.40.172 00:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pritsak, in his essay "The Pre-Ashkenazic Jews of Eastern Europe" (in the book "Ukrainian-Jewish Relations in Historical Perspective") states his belief that Kyiv was founded as a stronghold by the Khazars in the first half of the ninth century, based on the archaeological finds of the Saltovo culture discovered in the city in the 1970s. According to Pritsak, the Saltovo culture was typical for all Khazarian strongholds of the ninth-tenth centuries. With the opening of trade routes, first (after 843) the land route Regensburg-Itil and then (after 880) the fluvial route "from the varangians to the Greeks", Kyiv acquired importance as the trading station Sambata (literally "Saturday", as the market was held there on that day). Pritsak claims to have established the Khazarian origin of the toponymy of old Kyiv as represented in the Rus' Primary Chronicle; those claims are presented in his book "Khazarian Hebrew Documents of the Tenth Century", published jointly with Norman Golb.

Pritsak states that the original inner town of Kyiv consisted of only one borough (konets), the "Kopyrev konets", a name derived from the important Khazar tribal group "Kabar/Kapyr". In the twelfth century the borough had two gates: the "Podol" gate connected "Kopyrev konets" with the commercial industrial suburb (Podol), while the "Zhidovskye" or "Jewish" gate linked the (later) "Iaroslav town" (imperial Kyiv after 1030) with this borough. The western and southern areas of the affluent "Kopyrev konets" were still called "Zhidove", or "the Jews", in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. In the commercial suburb of Podol, the main district was called "Kozare", or "the Khazars"; there, near the harbour on the Pochaina stream, was the Khazarian customs office (Pasyncha beseda).

Pritsak also considers the so-called Kievan Letter discovered by the Hebrew scholar Norman Golb among Hebrew texts from the Cairo Geniza to be a further indication of the continuing presence of Khazar converts to Judaism in Kyiv in the tenth century. He considers that the Kievan Letter was issued around 930 by the Jewish community of Kyiv ("modi'im anu lachem kahal shel Kiyyov" = "we, the community of Kyiv, inform you"). He states that the names of the signatories are of both Hebrew and Khazarian origin. Of special importance is that the father of one signatory had the designation "Kybr", which according to Pritsak is the usual Hunnic equivalent to the Turkic form "Kabar/Kapyr". Pritsak considers that that finding connects the Kievan letter and the "Kopyrev konets" of the Kievan Primary Chronicle.

Below is my email exchange with the author of this text. Since it includes nothing personal and is strictly article-related, I am posting it here. --Irpen 01:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the addition may be valuable, but in that form we

could not use it directly. If I viewed it as nonsense, I would have deleted it, not moved to talk.

The article should present the mainstream versions as the main ones.

Interesting alternatives by acknowledges scholars may be mentioned as well but not such that they create an impression of being eqaully accepted in general. I will try to work something out of your version when I get to it. --Irpen

Irpen, Thanks for your response. Perhaps the answer would be to have Pritsak's thesis about the origin of Kyiv contained in a separate article linked to a reference in the main body of the article on the history of that city. (author of the text above)
I totally agree with your suggestion. I am just not able right now to write such an article but I will do all I can to help you should you be willing to start one. --Irpen
There should be a separate Foundation of Kiev article where such arguments belong. The controversy regarding the foundation of Kiev is sufficiently notable to merit an article of its own. Pecher Talk 09:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of Kiev in 1920[edit]

Comments (and especially references) about this somewhat dubious event are welcome at Talk:Kiev_Offensive#Recent_Irpen.27s_edit.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Ukrainian vs Nationalist[edit]

I changed "pro-Ukrainian" to "nationalist" for clarity. "pro-Ukrainian" implies that there were only two positions, the other one being, presumably, "pro-Russian". This muddles matters somewhat. The political landscape consisted of several dynamics: the pro v anti soviet aspect, the nationalist v non-nationalist bit, and the language problem (Russian v Ukrainian v Something in between). This seems like an excessively long explanation of a single word edit, but I think the merit is there. Terms like "pro-Ukrainian" can mean alot of things or nothing at all, and should be chosen carefully. If I missed the point (ie: the editor meant "intelectuals favoring the use of the Ukranian language" rather than nationalists), then the sentence should be reverted and qualified.

On a similar note, there ought to be some discussion of the interaction of Ukrainian and Russian in Kiev (and in Ukraine as a whole), in brief, because the question isn't simple. Ukrainian and Russian are not particulary distinct (meaning there is no clear geographical boundary that indicates "east of here:Russian, west of here:Ukrainian"). I'd go so far as to point out that almost nowhere in Ukraine is "text-book" Ukrainian spoken: the variations are great, progressing from "pure" Ukrainian in Galicia to "pure" Russian well within Russia itself. Between the two extremes, lies an entire spectrum that mixes the two in varrying quantities. Kiev Ukrainian lies closer to the Ukrainian end, of course, but is heavily diluted by Russian, this is not a simple product of the dominance of one language over the other, although this played an undeniable role, so much as it is the exponent of the normal interplay between the two. Just a suggestion. 128.197.130.220 18:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous, please register. Now, maybe pro-Ukrainian is not the best way to say here, but "nationalist" is even worse. People who simply wanted to use Ukainian in the capital of Ukraine were usually not nationalist. I personally know of a person who came to study in the main national University in 70s from the small Oblast town (obviously Ukrainophone) only to find out that in that the instruction of the main University in UA was totally in Russian. Being just graduated from the Ukrainian schools, the need to "adjust" was not only difficult, but humiliating for him. When he graduated and stayed at the department as an employee, all he wanted is to keep speaking Ukrainian at work. While not explicitly prohibited from doing so, he was subtly pressured to seize all throughout his career. Now, maybe his story is an exaggeration but there are many more stories like that. My personal account is also not a veryfiable reference for an article but it is OK as an illustration at talk. Please give it a thought, register and welcome to to continue the discussion. --Irpen 19:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More references for 20th Kiev[edit]

Would be appreciated. Hamm's 'Kiev: a portrait' ends in 1917: could anybody recommend any English language book or academic article which would have information on history of Kiev after 1917? I have access to a major US library center and would like to see if any book has information on the accusation discussed two sections above. I couldn't find a single useful book for 20th century history of Kiev in English using Google Print, Schoolar and Amazon. On the sidenote, I'd suspect there should be much more material written in Russian and Ukrainian. Unfortunately I can't help with that, as I have no proficiency in these languages,--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding an event[edit]

I have a book which mentions a "Kiev Massacre" of Jews that occurred in the 1880s. From this article I can only find the event in the 1940s. Does anyone have any information that might assist me? Thanks for replying via my talk page. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 03:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article about 1881 pogrom has not been written yet. But we have Kiev pogrom (1919) and Kiev pogrom (1905). --Irpen 04:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some corrections to the main article[edit]

According to other quite reliable sources Batu Kaani (Khan) conquered Kioava (Kijev) on December 6, 1240 thus ending the Kijev (Kievan) Rus Principality. The Mongols devasted the mainly wooden town quite completely. One can read an eye witnesser describtion of the time five years later; They laid a siege a long while vnto Kiow, the chiefe citie of Russia, and at lenght (December 6, 1240) they took it and slue the citizents. Whereupon, traveiling throught that countrey, wee found an innumerable multitude of dead men skulles and bones lying here and there all vpon the earth. For it was a very large and a popolous citie, but it is nowe (1246) in a manner brought to nothing for there doe scrace remaine 200 houses, the inhabitants whereof are kept in extreame bondage. This by Franciscane monk Ion de Plano Carpini from his Finnish version text "Mongolien mailla" (On the lands of Mongols), also published in English with the title "The long and wonderful voyage of Frier Iohn de Plano Carpini".

Also the truth of the Soviet installed radio controlled time fused mines in Kiev in 1941 is much more interesting than in main article published typical Soviet War Propaganda based exaggerating version. The Germans lost total less than 350 soldiers (in the first main explosion in their local military adminstration center alone about 250 deads) and they managed to de-active about 85 per cent of the installed mines. I hope I have time to describe the full story why the Germans were able (with Finnish help) to prevent the total destruction of Kiev by these radio mines. Example of the German Engineering Troops work was the Kiev main Railway Station building, which in fact was exploded by the Germans themselves during theit retreat in October 1943. If someone is interested to see photos of the station building still standing intact on September 13, 1943 and the actual explosion they are available in page 164 in the "Lokomotiven ziehen in den Krieg Band 3" published by Verlag Josef Otto Slezak, Wien 1980. ISBN 3-900134-64-2. The station building was built according to drawings made by Architect A. Verbiski in 1932. After the war it was completely rebuilt by the Soviet Union. On page 161 are photos of the Dniepr southern railway bridge between Kiev II and Darnitsa as repaired by the Germans taken on March 7, 1943 and after it was exploded by the retreating Germans on September 29, 1943. The northern railway bridge was photographed on May 25 and October 7, 1942 in page 161. This bridge was opened into service by RVD Kiew on December 15, 1942. More photos are available in Band 1, ISBN 3-900134-23-5 Wien 1977, pages 151 and 155 taken during the German evacuation of Kiev in September 1943. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.87.13 (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The intent is to make this a Featured article.[edit]

What improvements do we need to make so this article is excellent enough to be featured? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.166.100.2 (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excess links[edit]

i removed links that were duplicates, to definitions of words i think can be commonly assumed as understood, and for dates and years where the event listed were not in those articles. the last should be carefully checked before added. i notice a lot of articles link to a year, when not really appropriate. as always, if i inadvertently removed a link that someone feels is relevent, i wont revert (at least without a good solid reason), and apologize in advance for not seeing the relevance.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotection review[edit]

  • 07:36, 2 August 2007 Alex Bakharev protected History of Kiev (attack of Kyivization puppets [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

As the above semiprotection was some time ago I'd like to discuss whether it's still necessary. As well as welcoming comments from regular or sometime editors I've also notified the protecting sysop, Alex Bakharev (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

--TS 04:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Grand Duchy of Rus[edit]

Kiev was not the capital of the proposed Grand Duchy of Rus since it was never ratified. It was a part of the Treaty of Hadiach but when it came to ratification at the Sejm, this point was unilaterally eliminated, making the whole agreement a farce. So it is totally wrong to argue with this ratification even if there is no doubt it took place.

My pointed source is:

Т.Г. Таирова-Яковлева Иван Выговский // Единорогъ. Материалы по военной истории Восточной Европы эпохи Средних веков и Раннего Нового времени, вып.1, М., 2009: Под влиянием польской общественности и сильного диктата Ватикана сейм в мае 1659 г. принял Гадячский договор в более чем урезанном виде. Идея Княжества Руського вообще была уничтожена, равно как и положение о сохранении союза с Москвой. Отменялась и ликвидация унии, равно как и целый ряд других позитивных статей.

Professor Tairova-Yakovleva is not pro-Russian, she was honored by the former President of Ukraine Victor Yushchenko which is shown here.

Moreover, the Russian garrison of Kiev commanded by Knyaz Yuri Baryatinsky never gave up Kiev so it was not just de jure not the capital but also de facto!

I want to appeal to Mibelz and Galassi: Please, respect the rules of Wikipedia! Either you can disprove what I've written or not!

Sources about the ratification of the treaty ARE NOT sources about the ratification of the Grand Duchy of Rus and Kiev as its capital! I expect sourced quotes that are as concrete and pointed in this issue as my source is. --Voyevoda (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magyars/Hungarians are turkic people?[edit]

Is this some propaganda or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.92.185 (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

corrected! HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement that does not make sense[edit]

Both this article and the Kiev article have versions of the same statement:

  • Kiev None of Polish-Russian treaties concerning Kiev has been never ratified.<ref>[[Eugeniusz Romer]], O wschodniej granicy Polski z przed 1772 r., w: Księga Pamiątkowa ku czci Oswalda Balzera, t. II, Lwów 1925, s. [358].</ref>
  • History of Kiev Noone of Polish-Russian treaties concerning Kiev has been never ratified.<ref>[[Eugeniusz Romer]], O wschodniej granicy Polski z przed 1772 r., w: Księga Pamiątkowa ku czci Oswalda Balzera, t. II, Lwów 1925, s. [358].</ref>

These statements do not make sense because they have a double negative. I imagine that they mean something like: "Not one of Polish-Russian treaties concerning Kiev has been ever fully ratified by the Russian Government."--Toddy1 (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Kiev[edit]

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on History of Kiev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename this article[edit]

There is no "Kiev", only Kyiv, as the main article on the city is titled, along with everything else associated with it. See: Timeline of Kyiv—Preceding unsigned comment added by DanyloPushkar (talk • contribs) 18:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 August 2021[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jack Frost (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History of Kiev → History of Kyiv – I don't think there's much to say. The article on Ukraine's capital has been titled Kyiv for a while, and relevant articles about the city such as Name of Kyiv, Kyiv Metro, Kyiv Oblast, Kyiv metropolitan area, Subdivisions of Kyiv, Transport in Kyiv and Timeline of Kyiv use this name too. It only makes sense for this article to use Kyiv as well. Super Ψ Dro 19:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support It makes perfect sense. There's no reason to keep the old spelling here when the main article has been renamed. Largoplazo (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The historic name of the city is Kiev, and "Kyiv" does not match the Russian pronunciation. Dimadick (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Historic names do not matter (from Dimadick (talk · contribs)); as long as the official name of the city has been changed (which it has) and all other articles targeting the same city have also been renamed (see Kyiv, Kyiv metropolitan area, Kyiv Metro, etc - as per Largoplazo (talk · contribs)), then it makes sense to move this page along with the others. Also, Kyiv supports the Ukrainian language and pronunciation while Kiev supports the Russian language. Even popular spellchecks have suggested this spelling reform. Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 23:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination, Largoplazo and Liamyang. The example provided by Largoplazo — History of Peking — is a good analogy, along with a number of other such examples — History of Constantinople, History of Calcutta, History of Bombay, History of Madras (all are redirects), History of Rangoon (History of Yangon), etc. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Kiev is the English name, like Lisbon is to Lisboa or Copenhagen to Københaven. Who cares if it’s from Russian, other English exonyms come from other languages, like how Prague, Munich, Belgrade and Rome come from French. Ale3353 (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom It makes sense to use the historical term in articles set exclusively in that historical period. Otherwise we have to use the newly accepted terminology. And this concerns not only the names of cities. Lembit Staan (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. No idea how this article managed to stay with the old spelling for almost a year after Kyiv was changed to the current spelling--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Should be consistent with our title at Kyiv.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per everyone else's arguments. We call it Kyiv, so name everything Kyiv. aeschylus (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page not moved[edit]

Despite the obvious consensus in the recent discussion, the page was not moved to History of Kyiv. What is the reason for that?--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 06:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent spelling of the title term in the text[edit]

The article body should consistently use its titular spelling Kyiv. Any objections? —Michael Z. 03:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant: MOS:GEO says “A place should generally be referred to consistently by the same name as in the title of its article . . . An exception may be made when there is a widely accepted historical English name appropriate to the given context.” But the spelling variant Kyiv is not the result of a name change, and is used in history sources referring to Kyiv in all periods. —Michael Z. 03:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. Talk:Kyiv/Archive_9#RfC:_Kyiv/Kiev_in_other_articles. "For unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Kiev Offensive), do not change existing content". Same applies to, say, Kievan Rus'. Both fall under "widely accepted historical English name appropriate to the given context". Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It also says, in boldface, “For any edge cases, or in case of doubt or dispute, an RfC or move request debate is recommended.” The move request above found consensus to move. What are you unsure of? —Michael Z. 14:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We should maintain the existing consensus.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The move request above showed consensus to use Kyiv. The article text has been changed several times and ended up a random mix, and now doesn’t respect any consensus. —Michael Z. 14:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus was to maintain Kiev in historical articles. See Seryo93's post above.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See my response to their post. That consensus was to resolve “edge cases,” like an article whose scope includes post-1991 to the present, precisely the way we did on this page. Hence, this consensus, plus the general consensus to use an article’s title in the text. —Michael Z. 17:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't an "edge case" at all. The fact that topic of the page includes both historical and current spellings does not change anything other than page title. Rules regarding context relevance still stand, just as History of Saint Petersburg does not prescribe us to avoid "Leningrad" and "Petrograd" in appropriate parts of that article body. Same also applies to merely-spelling-changes, see Nanjing, which includes prior spelling not only in the lead, but also in relevant body parts. "The New York Methodist Mission Society's Superintendent, Virgil Hart arrived in Nanking in 1881. After some time, he eventually thwarted its officials by buying a piece of property near the South Gate and Confucius Temple; to build the city's first Methodist Church, western hospital (Blackstone Methodist Hospital) and Boys' School. The hospital would later be unified with the Drum Tower Hospital and the Boys' School would be expanded by later Missionaries to become the University of Nanking and Medical School. The old Mission property would become the No. 13 Middle School, the city's oldest/continuous school grounds in the city." Seryo93 (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How many reliable sources use both spellings of Kyiv in a single article the way you describe? I think it might be none.
But the city was not called Kiev in English before 1790. It was called Kiof, before that Kiovia, and still earlier Kiou. And before 1600, it’s name wasn’t attested in English. Your logic implies we should choose contemporary English names sentence by sentence, but it fails utterly when we talk about the city’s first 1,100 years.
This is why reliable sources don’t do what you want to do. —Michael Z. 00:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC said very clearly: "For unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Kiev Offensive), do not change existing content". Simply. Leave. As. Is. So, if it is Kiev (as in Kievan Rus'), it will stand so. Seryo93 (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are arguing in circles while avoiding the actual question and ignoring previous discussion. 1. That decision was about titles, not copy in various article sections. 2. You’re ignoring that it said, in bold, “in case of doubt or dispute, an RfC or move request debate is recommended.” 3. There was a move request, and there is no doubt that this article is titled History of Kyiv. It. Was. Not. Left. This discussion is about usage in the text of this article, which has also been changed several times, and is currently in an inconsistent state. —Michael Z. 01:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants in #Requested move 12 August 2021: User:Super_Dromaeosaurus, User:Largoplazo, User:Dimadick, User:Liamyangll, User:Roman_Spinner, User:Ale3353, User:Lembit_Staan, User:Yaksar, User:AeschylusUser:Ab207, and User:Ratnahastin. Does consensus for the article title mean consensus to use it in the article? (I can’t believe I’m asking this, but not everyone agrees.) —Michael Z. 16:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve also posted a note at the relevant WikiProjects. —Michael Z. 16:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The city was called "Kiev" for centuries, while "Kyiv" gained currency in the 1990s. I would oppose using the term "Kyiv" for any period prior to the 21st century. Dimadick (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of the last section includes the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. —Michael Z. 16:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I would say yes, we should absolutely use it as the standard name in the article -- it would be one thing if we were looking at a full name change (we don't use Volgograd when discussing the city's name when it was Stalingrad, for example), but in this case Kyiv has always been in use, it's just a matter of when different names were more common in English. It makes little sense to bounce around within the article depending on what version was most common at the time.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
English Wikipedia uses ‘Kiev’ when referring to the city before 1991 (see this rfc Talk:Kyiv/Archive_9#RfC:_Kyiv/Kiev_in_other_articles). Since this is an article about the history of the city, it makes sense to use ‘Kiev’ for most of the article body. Ale3353 (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And also Kyiv in the lead and part of the body? —Michael Z. 16:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s actually not that strange for a history article to use multiple names depending on the time period. See History of Istanbul for example, the body of the article uses Constantinople, Byzantium and Istanbul. Ale3353 (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. That's why I mentioned historical topics above. It is not based merely on pagename, as topic-starter suggests, but on appropriate context. And it absolutely does not matter, that local renaming didn't happen, because English spelling changes are to be treated roughly same way as renames proper. See Nanjing and Treaty of Nanking, for example. Seryo93 (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Seryo93, User:Ale3353, I understand your point. But the spelling Kiev was only used for two centuries: apparently it doesn’t appear until about 1790. Kiow and Kiou were used for three centuries between 1600 and 1900, and there were other spellings including Kioff and Kiovia. And for the first 1,100 years of existence, the city had no common English name as far as I can tell. How do you reconcile your proposed “depending on the time period” prescription with these facts, and how do we apply it to this article? To put it another way, the spelling Kiev was in use for, at best, 13% of the city’s existence. —Michael Z. 01:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the city has only been Ukrainian since 1991. Before that the city has been ruled by Poland, Lithuania, Russia and the Mongol Empire. It would be extremely strange to use the ‘Kyiv’ before the city was even Ukrainian. Take History of Gdańsk for example. The article uses ‘Gdańsk’ for when the city was Polish and ‘Danzig’ for when it was German. If we’re not going to use ‘Kiev’ in the body of the article, it would at least make sense to use the toponym of the country that was ruling over the city at the time (eg. Russian: ‘Kiyev’, Polish: ‘Kijów’) Ale3353 (talk) 08:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a good-faith proposal? Is there a single source as precedent for writing about Kyiv this way? Strictly speaking, Russian is Киев. Is Kiyev used in any reliable sources at all? Is that helpful for readers? Is that editorially feasible?: specifically, what name would you use in each section of this article? —Michael Z. 18:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If my proposal were implemented, I think we should use Kiyev or Kyiv from 482 to 1241 (Kievan Rus'), Kiyev from 1241 to 1362 (Mongol Empire), Kijevas from 1362 to 1569 (Grand Duchy of Lithuania), Kijów from 1569 to 1667 (Kingdom of Poland), Kiyev from 1667 to 1991 (Russian Empire and USSR), Kyiv from 1991 (Ukraine).

This would make more sense than using ‘Kyiv’ throughout the entire article, although I would prefer to use ‘Kiev’ before 1991; this would follow the established consensus from the RfC I referenced above and it would also be consistent with other historical articles such as Kievan Rus', Principality of Kiev, Kiev Offensive, Battle of Kiev (1941) etc. Ale3353 (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mzajac is topic-banned from this topic.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which invites a speedy close.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Mzajac's TB expired on 1 December 2021. But given aspersions at Talk:Kievan_Rus'#Kyivan_or_Kievan_Rus' ("After the main article was renamed Kyiv, a reactionary group of editors responded by voting to use the spelling “Kiev,” “in historical articles.”") I won't be much surprised if similar or broader TBAN would be enacted. Seryo93 (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Well, if this continues, I will go to AE again to request a topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Ymblanter I don’t think you have the moral authority to threaten me publicly, yet again, after you applied a false and insulting label to me personally, and then defended it at ANI, no less. I had to practically beg you to delete it because it significantly hurt my feelings and interfered with my contributing, but you never apologized or acknowledged your unacceptable behaviour. If you think admin action against me is warranted, then you should refer it to a neutral admin. If you don’t, then please stop accumulating disruptive talk by harrying me, because you’ve pigeonholed me in a negative category in your own mind. —Michael Z. 01:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say I am going to apply an admin action against your account, I am clearly involved with you and can not do it. I am furthermore involved with the topic and do not take admin actions in the topic area. This is why I have to go to ANI/AN/AE every time there is disruption going on.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And I am not here to be a moral authority, I am here to build an encyclopaedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your bullet point above started a disruptive thread that is only about me, and, yet again, invoking AE to influence me. You only started it after the “offence” you’re threatening me over has apparently been resolved. I’m trying put our relationship behind me, User:Ymblanter, despite your unapologetic insult and continued badgering, so why don’t you move on as well? —Michael Z. 17:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I will file an AE request shortly, we can continue there.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In general historical context, such as within the entirety of the article connected to this talk page, the Ukrainian capital's name should be indicated as "Kyiv". Exceptions are needed, of course, in specific instances, such as those listed under the Battle of Kiev disambiguation page.
Other such historical exceptions include the above-mentioned Treaty of Nanking for the presently-transliterated city of Nanjing, Bombay Time for the presently-transliterated city of Mumbai or Black Hole of Calcutta for the presently-transliterated city of Kolkata.
Kiev → Kyiv is not really a name change in the same sense as Constantinople → Istanbul, Tsaritsyn → Stalingrad → Volgograd, Saint Petersburg → Petrograd → Leningrad → Saint Petersburg or Madras → Chennai, but rather a retention of the same native name with a revised transliteration into the Latin alphabet, with a specific emphasis, in the English-speaking world, of transliteration into English.
Examples of such non-name-change transliteration would include Chungking → Chongqing, Calcutta → Kolkata or Rangoon → Yangon.
As far as use of the form "Kyiv" in History of Kyiv, guidance should be taken from the article History of Beijing where the city is referenced as "Beijing" in general historical terms throughout the article. The only use of "Peking" is for specific instances such as the continued use of the name "Peking University" in official Chinese transliteration into English. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, this reasoning and proposal has my support. Lkb335 (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:Mzajac: my edit was reverting parts of these edits, which were made while a discussion was in progress. Surely those should be reverted as well, given that a discussion is in progress? I only reverted some of the edits, which was clearly a mistake. Also, regardless of your position in this discussion, surely "Kyiv: a Portrait" should be "Kiev: a Portrait," given that that's the name of the text? Lkb335 (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your edit summary made no note of reverting and I only checked the previous edit. I’ll restore your last version. —Michael Z. 13:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok, and you're right, I should have mentioned that I was reverting. My bad. Lkb335 (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the normanist theory is standard - the khazar theory is not accepted by academics[edit]

the idea that kiev is a turkish word, or that kiev was founded by khazars, is not an idea that is accepted by academia. this is an obscure hypothesis. yet, frequent attempts to remove this obscure hypothesis and present it with the standard normanist hypothesis have been frequently undone, and the obscure hypothesis continues to be reasserted. this is something that wikipedia should be embarrassed about.

as can be verified in any dictionary, kiev is a slavic word that derives from a root word for metalworking. 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.179.229.114 (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine! Then it should be easy for you to find one or more reliable sources that say that explicitly. Adding the conclusions you make from different sources does not fly here, see WP:OR. Sjö (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
my sources were acceptable. yours are not. again: you should be embarrassed. you're standing up for one of the most ridiculed theories in all of history. 107.179.229.114 (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the position being presented here is called anti-normanism and is not accepted by mainstream scholars.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Normanism 107.179.229.114 (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:RS and WP:OR to learn about the sources that are acceptable on Wikipedia. Sjö (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i am not having difficulty following your rules, i am trying to correct a glaring error on your site from a position of knowledge and running into people that have little understanding of what they're editing, in a probably unaware process of upholding ideas that have never been taken seriously enough to debunk. i presented several academic papers that clearly debunked the idea of turks in the slavic archaeological complex, but the simple reality is that the people tasked to police this process almost certainly did not understand them, and just deleted them because they didn't understand them. so, don't tell me i did not present sources - the sources i presented were deleted and sources that are not accepted by any sort of scholarship were presented instead, on the apparent simple basis that they got published. this is what happens when incompetent people are tasked with overseeing something that they have no capability of understanding. nonetheless, i assure you that there are no sources that challenge the khazar origin hypothesis in kiev because it's not taken seriously enough to challenge. it's like asking the world to provide peer reviewed literature that the easter bunny does not exist - you won't find such a thing. there is no expose in the journal of derived syncretic religious traditions that debunks the easter bunny as a myth. then, how does a knowledgeable person go about removing references to the existence of the easter bunny in a site like this, when somebody managed to publish a paper claiming an easter bunny does exist? the paper that claims the easter bunny does exist has been published, however absurd the claim; no rebuttal exists, and none is likely forthcoming. except - and i will repeat myself - that i *did* post references that debunked the idea of a turkic presence in the slavic archaeological complex, and those references were deleted, for no other reason that i can discern of other than that the person deleting them didn't understand them, due to the large amount of big words in them. what a knowledgeable person can do in this situation is present arguments as to why the easter bunny does not exist using easy to understand language, including pictures and charts. yet, to the ignorant editors of the site, this would not be as convincing as the published tract claiming the existence of the easter bunny.
i hope i am getting the point across.
again - the idea of khazars in kiev is a joke, and what's happened here is exposing the limitations of wikipedia as a source of information. it is almost impossible to remove garbage, once it's been uploaded, as there will always be an army of fools that, due to the dunning-kruger effect, is eager to undo it. 107.179.229.114 (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this is one of several sources i posted that got deleted and that accurately reflects the mainstream consensus on the topic:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10611959.2018.1536635?journalCode=maae20 107.179.229.114 (talk) 09:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the above paper is also available here:
https://bunker2.zlibcdn.com/dtoken/b130b895de2b1891df7e7ded7619251b/10611959.2018.1536635.pdf 107.179.229.114 (talk) 09:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: How to spell the name of the subject in this article[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus leans towards Option 1, to consistently use Kyiv throughout the article. (non-admin closure) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How should we spell the name of the subject in this article?

  1. Same as the article title, Kyiv
  2. Kiev
  3. With both spellings, applying the decision for RfC: Kyiv/Kiev in other articles (11 November 2020) section-by-section
  4. Other

 —Michael Z. 03:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1 Kyiv Policies have us use the article title’s spelling in the text, and the article title follows the main article Kyiv’s spelling (alternate spellings may be mentioned once in parentheses, per conventions). WP:MODERNPLACENAME says “older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources do the same,” and that is not the case for Kyiv (and the spelling Kiev was not used before the nineteenth century). The exception mentioned in option 3. is for whole articles only, and there is no mandate to apply the unheard-of writing style of mixing up different spellings in an article – reliable sources do not do this.  —Michael Z. 03:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This article is “unambiguously current/ongoing” according to the decision cited in option 3: its history continues up to March 2022, clearly beyond the chosen thresholds of 1991 and 1995 into the present.  —Michael Z. 14:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you copied my reasoning below and usurped it for your ongoing campaign underlines its validity. If we accept the city's foundation as 482 (unsourced in the aricle BTW), then 98% of the time falls into what the consenus defined as unambiguously historical. It remains unclear, why the page was moved in violation of this consensus. 89.206.112.10 (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your reasoning is obviously wrong. The decision gives the example of Kyiv Metro as another example of unambiguously current/ongoing, a subject beginning 1884 and with construction started 1949. “98%” has nothing to do with the clear word and intent of that consensus.
    This article was moved by consensus, which is quite clear: Talk:History of Kyiv#Requested move 12 August 2021, and conforming exactly to the “in other articles” consensus. No one is challenging that. This discussion is about a copy-editing question whose answer should be completely straightforward, if some editors didn’t muddy the arguments over their refusal to accept the consensus on the title, the spirit and letter of the “in other articles” consensus, and the conventions of the MOS.  —Michael Z. 16:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Current sources use the spelling “Kyiv,” in all contexts including historical. (The city’s name has never been changed: sources just started using a Ukrainian-derived name for the city in Ukraine instead of the colonial, Russian-imposed, Russian-derived spelling.)
    Surveying current usage in Google Books per WP:SET, restricted to 2023:
    The old spelling is not used in a substantial majority of reliable modern sources, not even for historical subjects. Even in historical subjects, it is used by a much higher proportion of sources today than it was generally when the article Kyiv was renamed in September 2020.  —Michael Z. 17:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In 2022, it was Kyiv 105[4], Kiev 77;[5] Kyiv:History 54 [6], Kiev:History 59 .[7] —Michael Z. 17:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Why would the result of the RfC (i.e. For unambiguously current / ongoing topics (e.g. Kyiv Metro), Kyiv is preferred, For unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Kiev Offensive), do not change existing content) apply differently here? Curbon7 (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Contradictory edits have left this article in its current poor state, and discussion remained at an impasse. See Talk:History of Kyiv#Consistent spelling of the title term in the text above.  —Michael Z. 14:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mzajac, I've given it some thought and agree with your comments. This is not a Gdańsk/Danzig or Bratislava/Pressburg situation wherein the name changed between different languages and states, but rather a situation where the romanization was adjusted to be in line with current standards. As such, I think option 1 makes the most sense for this case. Curbon7 (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 - Follow the RFC, which implements a rule using common names. There has already been too much figurative blood spilled in Wikipedia, and far too much human blood spilled in the region of Kyiv and elsewhere in Ukraine. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That RFC was not about COMMONNAME, and it contradicts MODERNPLACENAME by overriding what we should do based on reliable sources. In fact Kyiv is now the common-name spelling, even for historical references, or at least one of two common names, as recognized in the decision on the Kyiv RM.  —Michael Z. 21:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 in other articles we might argue why should we use certain spellings, however in the article of the city's history it only makes sense to follow the current title and spelling as I see it. Though proper names of their own should be something different, so Kievan Rus' and Chicken Kiev stay for now. I am also a bit confused as to why has this RfC been started now, did anything change? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just got tired of looking at the mess in the article, and an RFC is the only way I saw forward after previous attempts at editing and discussion above.  —Michael Z. 22:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 The historical name of the city should be used for its corresponding section. The lead can open with Kyiv and go on to explain the different names and changes of ownership. Senorangel (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The city’s history is officially over 1,500 years old, but it was not mentioned in English until about 400 years ago, and its name hasn’t changed in that period. But the Kiev spelling only appeared about 230 years ago, and the Kyiv spelling just under a hundred years ago. Of course the article could mention the dozen or more spellings that have been used historically, but it shouldn’t use them. The naming conventions say to use what modern sources use, for whatever period, and modern sources use Kyiv.  —Michael Z. 03:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 or weak 3 - The article on the city's history is an unambiguously historical topic as defined per earlier consenus. 89.206.112.10 (talk) 09:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1, I don't really understand why we should use a different name, the accepted name of the city on Wiki is Kyiv. It should be used consequently. Besides, WP:KYIV says clearly that the name Kiev should be applied to the names of events, places, historical phenomena etc., so for example "Kievan Rus'". However, the name of the city is Kyiv.Marcelus (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes the name changes over a long history. This article is both historical and current. It appears the city has been destroyed once and undergone major cultural and demographic changes. MODERNPLACENAME refers to how current scholarship describes historical and contemporary places. It is not as simple as adopting the newest name. So how to name the city at different times in history may depend on the context. Senorangel (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Kyiv name didn't really change in history, just the spelling was a bit different in different periods. It's not the Constantinople/Istanbul or Koenigsberg/Kaliningrad case. London wasn't always spelled that way. Marcelus (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. It is a common principle in writing and publishing to use a consistent terminology within any single work and to list any alternative (commonly used) variants of each term whenever the term is firstly introduced, so that to avoid confusing the readers unnecessarily (esp. the ones not well-acquainted with the subject and with such differences in terminology). Otherwise, if multiple variants are used within a single work, then the reader might mistakenly think that there are some (maybe subtle) differences in the mentioned concepts as well. Here, in all cases, both terms Kyiv/Kiev refer to the same object/concept, so it seems better to aim for a consistent spelling at least within a single Wikipedia page (if we cannot achieve it in all articles simultaneously). And since the page's title now has "Kyiv", then it's better to use this variant consistently throughout the page, while of course mentioning "Kiev" in the lead. I personally see "Option 3" as a transitional stage of moving towards "Option 1", though even if one stops there, then it would be probably better to explicitly mention both variants Kyiv and Kiev together at the beginning of each section, so that to remind the readers that it's the same term, whenever they switch between the sections. And of course, it is absurd to switch the usage every other sentence (as it is now in the page) — it would be then better just to replace all occurrences by double name "Kyiv/Kiev". Similar rule should apply to all derivative terms, like Kievan Rus or Principality of Kiev — it does not matter so much which variant is used within the page (though Kyiv seems a bit more logical, especially in the second example), but the usage should definitely be consistent throughout, and if the derivative term uses a different convention (with Kiev as default), then the alternative should be mentioned in brackets at the first usage as well, like in Kievan (Kyivan) Rus and Principality of Kiev (Kyiv). --Kammerer55 (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the options using Kyiv or Kiev in all situations is going to lead to additional confusion. The article could use some standardisation, towards Kyiv, but I'd be opposed to mandating that it must be used in all cases (which would be ahistorical). It would also mean implementing a solution in this single article that goes against what is used elsewhere. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how using one spelling for one referent can cause additional confusion, especially compared to the current mess. By rejecting any coordinated improvement, you are voting for it to remain confusing. Specifically what standardization would you suggest to help this article not go against “what is used elsewhere”? (AFAIK, elsewhere uses one spelling or the other.) —Michael Z. 23:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No I'm saying that not all spellings have to be the same, that that isn't a mess, and it's quite understandable. You may disagree but I'm pretty sure I understood what I'm trying to say better than you do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit I don’t quite understand. I am puzzled and a bit troubled by the use of “ahistorical” above. We are not imitating historical writing. We use WP:MODERNPLACENAMEs except “when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources do the same.” They do not. Sources writing about Kyiv, including its history, use one spelling. They don’t mix it up. Today that one spelling is usually Kyiv.
    Do mean you believe that sources vary the spelling when referring to the city with regards to different periods? They do not: 99.99% of sources use one spelling only, apart from anthologies. Today it’s generally Kyiv, even for sources about history.
    Do you mean we should always use contemporary spelling for different periods? Should we also use recent spellings Kyïv, Kyjiv, and Kyyiv? Up to the 20th century there were multiple spellings used, and before the 19th neither Kyiv nor Kiev was used (but Kiou, Kiow, Kiovia, Kioff, Kiew, Kief, &c). Before 1600, there were no English spellings, because English sources didn’t mention the city during the first seven centuries of its written history and the previous five centuries of its prehistory.
    Obviously we can mention other spellings when we say it’s also been called “Kiev” or talk about historical names. No one is suggesting not to. That is not using multiple spellings of the same name throughout parts of the article.  —Michael Z. 03:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the options per ActivelyDisinterested. DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 22:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you propose an acceptable option?  —Michael Z. 23:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 -- The international move from Kiev to Kyiv was not a renaming but a correction of a transliteration that was imposed on the natives of the city. Why do people get so hung up about imperial and colonial naming mistakes? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same as the main article spelling, whatever it is. We don't use historical spelling simply because we're writing about historical topics. Graham (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Kyiv&oldid=1218645126"